BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/03/2011

Date of Order : 29/11/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 177/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

On 17-03-2011, the complainant along with his family and friends, altogether 6 persons went to Thirupathi. The tour was arranged by the opposite party. The tickets were handed over by the opposite party on 17-03-2011. The upward journey tickets was confirmed, but the downwards tickets were under waiting list. The opposite party promised confirmation of the tickets before starting the return journey. On 18-03-2011, the complainant along with others reached at Katpadi railway station by bus arranged by the opposite party. The representative of the opposite party was present there and he verified the railway chart and it was found that the names of the complainant and others were not included in the chart. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the return tickets were purchased from Chennai Station and board also in Chennai Station. The complainant contacted the Station Master at Katpadi he expressed his helplessness, since the complainant was bound to report the T.T.E. at Chennai Central. After that the opposite party's representative was absconded. The journey was at night the facilities like toilet, food and seats are not provided by the opposite party. Due to these irresponsibilities on the part of the opposite party, the journey was very harmful and difficult since all are aged persons the acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approaches this Forum for seeking compensation from the opposite party.

2. The version of the opposite party :

The opposite party admitted that they had arranged Tirupathi tour on 17-03-2011 in which the complainant was a member. The complainant booked six tickets on 09-02-2011 with the opposite party. The tickets were booked and handed over to him in advance and he was well aware of the status of the tickets before departure and he did not have any complaint at that time. During the trip, the opposite party's tour manager was accompanied with them. The train tickets of the complainant and his group were from Chennai Central. Any how, the tour Manager of the opposite party managed to accommodate them and provide berths to them to consult with after consulting the T.T.R.

3. The complainant appeared through counsel and the opposite party appeared through their authorised person. The complainant examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. DW1 was examined on the side of the opposite party. Thereafter we have heard both sides.

4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party?

5. The case of the complainant is that their return journey tickets were purchased from Chennai and boarding was at Chennai Central. But the opposite party dropped them at Katpadi Station by their vehicle. Therefore, the reservation facilities were lost to the complainant. The opposite party admitted that they have arranged Tirupathi tour on 17-03-2011 in which the complainant and his group were members. But they denied the contention of the inconformity of the tickets and the resultant inconveniences as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party contended that the complainant refused to go to Chennai station.

6. Ext. A1 is the copy of tour guide lines issued by the opposite party, Ext. A3 is the copy of receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant and Ext. A4 series are the copies of train tickets. On a perusal of Ext. A4 series train ticket, it seems that the upward tickets were upto Katpadi Railway Station. In the return ticket, it is mentioned that the reservation was from at Chennai Central. But there is no evidence on record to show that the opposite party was ready and willing to drop the complainant at Chennai Central and the opposite party informed the complainant that their tickets were reserved at Chennai Central. And also there is no evidence to prove that the return journey was from Katpadi to their native place. The opposite party failed to prove that they have taken their earnest effort to accommodate the complainant and arranged their berths. Moreover, no evidence is before us as to the fact that the return tickets were handed over to the complainant well in advance before the journey, especially when the complainant contended that at the time of starting their tour and return tickets were not confirmed. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. So, the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the reasons state above. We fix the compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. In the pleadings in the complaint, the complainant stated that he is representing the co-passengers and sought reliefs for them also. But they are not parties to the complaint. Therefore, we are not to order any compensation for them.

7. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on their part.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========