Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          The case of the complainants, in short, is that they contacted the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan, 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700 001 for the tour which was conducted by the OP for 14 days from 22-01-2013 to 04-02-2013 and paid Rs.20,577/- vide receipt No.6207 dated 22-12-2012 for two persons.

          That during the commencement of the journey on 22^nd January night and on arrival at Ernakulam on 24^th January, afternoon, the tour manager was found surfaced only once during the entire 43(forty-three) hours of journey and when they reached Ernakulam Railway Station on 24^th January, 2013 evening, they had to carry their own luggage upto taxi stand and the luggage were loaded in a Mini truck and the tourists had to follow to foot to reach at the Hotel, instead of taking them in a vehicle/Taxi by the OP/Travel Co.  Further, and due to lack of ignorance about the route/places of sightseeing areas, the Manager and the Bus Driver roamed about 16 Kms. more to reach Munnar and also in due time of lunch, proper food were not served by the OP/Manager.  Even, during the course of journey and local sight seeking trip was done hurriedly to avoid the darkness and thus failed to cover all the tourists spots as a whole and also on 27^th January in the morning the OP abandoned other local tour programme on the plea that the roads to those visiting spots were congested but which later transpired as unfounded on enquiry of the same.  Fact remains the whole tour programme of Kerala and Tamil Nadu as experienced by the complainants, were full of short comings on the part of the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan, as stated by the complainants who also complained regarding sub-standard Hotel accommodations which were provided in every place of visit and hotel rooms were stuffy with poor amenities as provided, that lift service in almost all the hotels was mostly erratic, daily foods were prepared in most unhygienic condition as no proper kitchen was provided by the hotels authority, thus, for such inadequate and poor service as rendered by the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan who failed to conduct a hassle free Tour, the complainants, therefore, being aggrieved, prayed for redressal before the Ld. Forum.

          In its written version the OP stated that they have made all arrangements with their best efforts to ensure the comfort of the tourists.  In the instant complaint, the complainants have not made any averment to the effect that they were not rendered services that was promised by the OP/Tour and Travels Co.   The petition of the complainants are based on oral statements which cannot be established under the provisions of the C.P. Act.  The particular fact is that the Driver was new and he had no knowledge about the particular road and hotel, as such, they reached the destination for lunch after one hour for scheduled time though the OP’s staff requested the tourists to take food during the journey what they refused with a submission that they first wanted to reach hotel and thereafter shall have to take their lunch.  But fact remains that the tourists have enjoyed the beautiful sightseeing, DAM and ECHO POINT and also forest of RAJAMALA which was out of the schedule of the tour package.  It is also denied by the OP that hotel room was either stuffy with poor amenities or other services such as breakfast, lunch and dinner which were provided to them were sub-standard.  The allegations are all oral and without any proof.  The complainants, for their illegal gain have cooked up such cock and bull stories in this regard.  OP further asserted that they did not change the tour programme from Allapy to Trivendram, but for such journey the OP provided 19(nineteen) seater luxury bus with 2/2 sitting facility which was enough for 17 tourists.  As the complainants did not suffer from any nuisance they failed to clarify the actual loss and therefore they are not entitled for any amount as cost and compensation.  The OP, therefore, states that the instant complaint is filed on flimsy ground with a mala fide intention to lower down the reputation of OP in the eye of public at large and thus the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons

On proper evaluation of the argument and regard we have gathered that it is true and admitted fact that the complainants undertook the journey with the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan to visit Kerala along with other tourists on 22-001-2013 according to their scheduled tour programme and reached Ernakulam Railway Station on 24^th January afternoon.  During the tour as per programme from the beginning, the Manager of the OP was showing his favour to some couple/tourists everywhere despite pointing it out to him, but the same went unheeded.  Further, also other arrangement in connection with the Railway tickets which were booked in fictitious names of co-tourists and those persons were under fear of being caught by Railway checking staff and might be subjected to punishments for such travelling with improper tickets.  Fact remains that after completion of the tour programme, while complainants came back, sent a letter dated 16^th February, 2013 and narrated then grievance during tour/journey, the painful of experience of the loan to the OP, but they neither investigate the matter nor replied.  It is a fact that the complainants have not been able to file any documentary evidence in support of their grievance and about such painful journey during the tour as arranged by the OP/Bharat Darshan, but fact remains that there might be some short comings of the OP due to engagement of new driver who had little knowledge about the route of sightseeing places as per tour programme and where worst managerial staff who were incapable to handle/supervise the tourists in a dignified way and invariably though it is stated by the OP that complainants did not suffer any misery and have not clarified the actual loss but fact remains that according to the schedule of tour programme as supplied by the OP during the time of booking/payment, same were not followed and is also deviated from the tour programme as per brochure.

          Considered the entire materials on record as submitted by both the parties and also particularly non-submission of any believable document to prove that they enjoyed a lower grade facilities as Hotel during their stay at different places during the tour programme.  But it is admitted by the OP in written statement (Para 16) that driver was newly appointed one and he had no knowledge about the particular road side for which only in one occasion the tourists (complainants) reached at the hotel after lapse of one hour from the lunch hours but it is the specific case of the OP that they requested them to take food during journey what they refused by saying so that they shall have to take lunch after reaching the hotel and accordingly, lunch was served to them(complainants and others) at Hotel.  Thereafter, entire tour programme was completed and OP showed beautiful sightseeing, Dam and Echo Point etc. and also the forest of Rajamala which was out of the city and other part of the complainant’s allegation have been denied by the OP so, question is whether complainant proved that they were deprived by the OP during tour programme to see and to enjoy selected sites as per brochure.

          After giving proper attention in respect of the complaint and the written version including the tour programme of Bharat Tirtha Darshan of the present tour we have gathered that at starting point of the tour programme at Kerala was on 22-01-2013 and arrival date was 04-02-2013.  But considering the said programme from brochure it is found that OP is silent about visiting the site of Kanyakumari, Padmanava Temple, Periar Reserve Forest, boating etc. and when complainants have specifically alleged that as per tour programme at Kerala the OPs did not give them any chance to visit the above sites and against this allegation OP is silent.  Then, it is clear that tour was continued from 22-01-2013 to 04-02-2013 and they arrived at Howrah but anyhow, as per chart for visiting the different places in between 25-01-2013 to 02-02-2013 all the sites were not shown to the complainant which is proved from the fact that the OP has not made any specific assertion that they arranged for their visit or tour as per brochure chart and they enjoyed it.    

          Most peculiar factor is that OP has failed to show their courage of deny the fact but they tried to convince this Forum by saying for what reason they reached at the hotel after one our delay.  Then what refrained themselves to express in the written version very specifically that on particular dates they showed the particular sites to the tourists complainants but that is absent.  Then it is clear that complainant’s grievance that all the sites were not shown to them by the OP bear some merits in the eye of law what has created much confidence in our mind that OPs did not show some sites as per brochure of the tour programme for which being aggrieved and agitated complainants filed his compliant for redressal not only that they made complaint before the OP also when OP were silent to but OP has his scope to place before this Forum at the time of submitting written version by specifically mentioning of the places (sites) which were shown to the complainant but in this regard OP is silent and OP has tried to convince this Forum only by saying in the written version that it is the duty of the complainant to prove by the cogent document but we have failed to understand why OP did not explain for what reason the places which were enjoyed by the complainant or what places OP went their along with their tourists as per brochure are not facing in the written version and evidence in chief when the present complainants claim that they are deceived by the OP though they paid good money being satisfied of the tour programme as supplied by their brochure but it is proved that all the places were not shown and that was vital places when that is the fact then there is no other alternative but to rely upon the allegation of the complainant when same are not denied by the OP particularly in any para.  It is to be mentioned in this regard that denial shall not be treated denial in respect of the particular allegation because it is settled principle of law that in case of travel agency it is their duty to show which places were shown by them and for that purpose what they did but in this case OP has failed to prove that but shifted the responsibility upon the complainant in respect for not giving any document to prove that all the places (sites) as per brochure supplied at the time of booking the tour programme after receiving money from the complainant were not shown by the OP.

          Regarding below standard of avenues during the tour programme is not proved by any demands etc. but fact remains hotels were booked by the OP and in that case the tourists ought to have filed complaint before the Manager of the Hotel by keeping a copy in their hand but no such complaint was filed by the complainant to the hotel authority for which we are not in a position to believe in toto however, it is the duty of the present OPs to give proper convenience or facilities during tour hours and also at the hotel as arranged by the OP and in this case where grievances is there we can rely upon such grievance when these present complainants are senior citizen and there is no ground to say anything falsely before this Forum when OPs did not act and did not reply against their grievance that means the OP has no scope to deny after return from journey not only that OPs have their scope to say there something in details or in the evidence in chief but they are silent so the whole conduct of the OPs easily prove that complainant did not get proper relief as tourists from the OP and OP did not render proper service to them about Hotel arrangements and other matter etc. and for which complaint as filed by the complainant bears merit in eye of law and their case is proved to some extent only on the ground the OP has not denied certain parts of the allegation. 

          Considering the above materials on the records as submitted by both the parties, we are of the view that the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan who conducted the tour was not at all hassle-free tour which they failed to perform for the satisfaction of the tourists/complainants but somehow the OP have completed the tour programme and the complainants came back and then submitted their dissatisfaction, also contacted the OP and complained vide their letter dated 16^th February, 2013, but the OP were unheaded about the complaint which is unfair on their part. 

          It is only a rare tourist/consumer who is vigilant and conscious of his rights under the C.P. Act and who prepared to take the route of legal proceedings and knocks at the Fora.

          In our view, this practice by the OP is not only a case of misrepresentation through misleading advertisement of tour programme to deceive the consumer which is also an unfair trade practice in the eyes of C.P. Act.

          Therefore, we direct the OP to cease and desist from such practice in future.  Since, they had then more responsibilities to conduct hassle-free tour of the tourists whom they had taken and conducted the tour programme by taking total tour money from them.  In lieu of payment, the OP is bound to render their services, but there was laches to render actual services to the tourists at all times during the journey and conducted such a painful tour programme.  A Tour Manager and their other staff members should have keep strict vigil on travellers in their genuine need and discomforts.   Since, the complainants belong to Sr. Citizen category they ought to have been provided more attention by the tour operator during the ongoing tour programme and obviously, the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan might not be escaped from such neglected attitude on duty on the part of the company for which the tour became painful instead of enjoyable programme in spite of best assurances of service to be given by them.

          In the backdrop of such state of affairs, we are inclined to hold that there was deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan as enshrined u/s.2(1)(g) and (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986 for causing hardship, mental anxiety and discomfort of the complainants and, as such, the OP/Bharat Tirtha Darshan is liable to pay by way of compensation at least Rs.5,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).

          The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainants for such negligent act during the tour programme as rendered by the OP.

          The OP shall have to comply the above order strictly within 30(thirty) days failing which for each day’s delay and disobedience of Forum’s order OP shall have to pay for punitive damages @Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and, if any, reluctant attitude of the OP is found for complying the Forum’s order in that case penal proceedings u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 shall be initiated against the OP.

Dictated & Corrected

      by me