PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the District Consumer Forum No. 1, Lucknow dated 31.08.2004 and order dated 08.4.2011 passed by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short State Commission).  M/s. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the successor in interest of the original Opposite Party Sita World Travel India Ltd.) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the complaint filed by the complainant/Mr. Arun Sinha and others against the O.P./M/s. Sita World Travel India Ltd., the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint holding the O.P. guilty of deficiency in service and directed the above named travel agency to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/-.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party/petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission but without success.

2.      The facts and circumstances leading to filing of the complaint and thereafter passing of the order are amply recorded in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end.  For the purpose of disposal of the present proceedings, we may simply notice that the complainant had booked a tour package to Malaysia and Singapore by paying a sum of Rs. 1,79,417/- besides US $ 3,200.  However, when they reached the tourist places and hotels at Genting, Kulalampur and Singapore they encountered several difficulties in the matter of transport, hotel accommodation etc., inasmuch as they were offered only one room in the hotels against the booking and requirement of two rooms as the complainant was accompanied by his wife and two children.  He and his family had to suffer inconvenience and harassment for which the complaint was filed.  The complaint was resisted primarily on the ground that the opposite party was merely a ticketing agent and it had issued to & fro Air tickets besides arranging for transport and hotel accommodation etc., through foreign travel/tourist agencies, which was in the knowledge of the complainant and therefore, the opposite party was not liable for any deficiency in service committed by the said overseas travel/tour agency over whom the opposite party had no control and the complainant ought to have filed the complaint against them.  This argument was discounted by the Fora below and holding the predecessor interest with the opposite party in guilty and deficiency of service, complaint was partly allowed.

3.      We have heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.  The factual position not being in dispute the only question, the leaned counsel for the petitioner once again reiterated is that the petitioner could not be held guilty for any deficiency in service provided by the foreign service providers M/s. Frederick’s Travel & Tour Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Tourland etc.  This contention has been dealt with by the Fora below at great length and the State Commission has repelled the same by observing as under:

          “M/s. Sita Travels had entered into an agreement with the respondents to provide their service during their tours to Malaysia and Singapore, therefore, the appellants are answerable to them with the jurisdiction of Lucknow Fora to entertain and decide their claim petition.  Needless to say that M/s. Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited owe the liabilities of Sita Travels as the Sita Travels has now merged with the appellant company after the latter had acquired all its rights and liabilities.  Accordingly we hold that the plea of jurisdiction taken by the appellants has no substance and thus rejected.

            The next submission pressed into service on behalf of the appellants is that they are not accountable for the lapse of the two travel agents working abroad as neither they were under the control of Sita Travels or the appellants, nor there is any proof of the deficiency on their part.  In this context, it may be observed that Sita Travels or Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited could seek instructions from the two travel agencies i.e. M/s. Tourland and M/s. Frederick’s Travel & Tour Private Limited and ascertain as to what had happened and who was at fault.  The appellants have not filed any correspondence with the two travel agencies so as to bring on record their version of the matter.  Sita Travel and the appellants both had the business relationship with the two travel agencies of Malaysia and Singapore and thus they were in complete commanding position to ask the managers of both the agencies to send their written versions about the allegations of lapses or the deficiency in service rendered to the complainants.  But the appellants have not made any endeavor to bring on record their version either before the District Consumer Forum or before this Commission.  Sri Arun Sinha filed his detailed affidavit about the lapses and deficiency in service of the two travel agencies but the appellants have not cared either to send the copy of the complaint or Sr. Arun Sinha’s affidavit to the managers of the two travel agencies for admission or denial nor they, by any other mode of communication, tried to elicit from the two managers anything about the allegations in the complaint.   In the absence of specific denials by the managers of the two travel agencies, the affidavit of Sri Arun Sinha carries significance and his averments are believable as the appellants have not been able to rebut them by counter affidavit of a relevant person.  The affidavit of Sri Cleveland John, manager of Kuoni Travels is not reliable for the simple reason that he had not submitted his affidavit on the basis of any material supplied to him by the managers of the two foreign travel agencies.  Had he enclosed with his affidavit some letter of the two foreign travel agencies, his averments would have been of some value but in the absence of the version of the real service providers, his statement simplicitor is of no relevance.  All his denials on the face of the affidavit of Sri Arun Sinha are baseless and liable to be rejected.”

4.      In our view, the said finding recorded by the Fora below is based on correct and appropriate appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record and is also in consonance with the settled legal position.

5.      That apart, we may notice that the jurisdiction of this Commission to correct the concurrent of the findings of the For a below is limited only to find out if the orders so passed suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality of has resulted into miscarriage of justice.  In this connection the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., may be noted as under:

         “23.      Also it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside.  In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

6.      Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that compensation awarded is on higher side and excessive.  Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the kind of inconvenience, which the complainant and his family members had suffered at the ends of tour operators, the compensation so awarded does not appear to be harsh or excessive.

7.      Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and having considered the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order by the State Commission passed by the Fora below does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which warrants interference by this Commission.  The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.