Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/470/2020

Surjeet Singh Bhurjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blue Ribbons Holidays - Opp.Party(s)

Manju Goyal

08 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/470/2020
Date of Institution	:	21/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	08/09/2023

 

Surjeet Singh Bhurjee r/o H.No.175, Sector 36A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Blue Ribbons Holidays, Thomas Cook, PSA, U-201, IIIrd Floor, Shakarpur, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-92, through Sh. Sanjay Agarwal.
2. Mazda Travels Kashmir, 3^rd Floor, Polo Plaza, Polo View, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190001.
3. Thomas Cook, Head Office – Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Manju Goyal, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte
	:	OP-2 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for OP-3

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Surjeet Singh Bhurjee, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the OPs are running business of tours and travels as Blue Ribbon Holidays under the name and style of “M/s Blue Ribbons” and are franchisee of M/s Thomas Cook Travels (OP-3) and one of the reputed associates Travel Management Company in Jammu & Kashmir under the name and style of Mazda Travels through whom OP-1 sub-contracts their clients of land and hotel arrangements at the local level.  On 4.6.2016, complainant had shown his desire for visiting Kashmir and contacted OP-3. OP-1 sent an email to OP-2 asking for the best price of 5N/6D package on 5 star on MAP plan from 15.6.2016 to 22.6.2016. OP-1 had sent details of the same through email alongwith price of ₹45,000/- per person. The itinerary was changed from 5N/6D to 7N/8D and accordingly the price was also changed and copy of emails are Annexure C/I. The OPs were charging more than the usual rate and on pointing out the same, they changed their price and reduced it to ₹1,85,150/- only for the land and hotel arrangements and in addition to the air tickets.  Confirmation regarding the same was sent through email (Annexure C/II). After confirming everything payment of ₹2,46,550/- was made by the complainant to the bank account of OP-1 and the same was acknowledged through email dated 10.6.2016 (Annexure C/III).  However, as the complainant got unwell and was down with serious fever and stomach infection, the doctors advised him not to travel and the ill health of the complainant was communicated to OPs vide email dated 13.6.2016 (Annexure C/IV).  One Sanjay Aggarwal who was doing the whole process of booking was conveyed by the complainant through email about his ill health and was also requested to refund the deposited amount and email was also sent to OP-2 (Annexure C-V), but, nothing has been done till date. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and also that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP. On merits, alleged that OP-1 is neither the franchise nor preferred sales agent of the answering OP and the complainant was aware of this fact that OP-1 was independently doing its own travel business and was allegedly having arrangement with OP-2 for its client’s requirements regarding hotels, travels etc. at the local level in Kashmir.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-1 and OP-2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 29.1.2021 and 13.3.2023 respectively.
4. Complainant chose not to file the rejoinder to rebut the stand of OP-3.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that he directly contacted OPs 1 & 2 for his tour to Kashmir in the month of June 2016, as is also evident from copies of emails (Annexure C/I to C/IV), through which the complainant and OPs 1 & 2 had conversed with each other and the complainant had also transferred an amount of ₹1,85,150/- as booking amount for the said tour in favour of OPs 1 & 2, as is also evident from Annexure C/III, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs 1 & 2 are unjustified in refunding the paid amount to the complainant despite of his repeated requests and the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 & 2 and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant has no cause of action against OP-3 and the consumer complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed against OP-3 as is the defence of OP-3. 
   2. Perusal of Annexure C/III clearly indicates that an amount of ₹1,85,150/- was duly acknowledged by OPs 1 & 2 having been transferred by the complainant in their favour as booking amount.  Annexure C-IV copy of email further indicates that the complainant had conveyed to OP-1 about his ill health and requested for cancellation of the tour which was further conveyed by OP-1 to OP-2.  Annexure C/V copy of chat between complainant and OP-1 clearly indicates that Sanjay Aggarwal, official of OP-1 had assured the complainant that the paid amount is safe and will be refunded to him, though there is little delay on their part. 
   3. Thus, one thing is clear from the documentary evidence, as discussed above, that the complainant has contacted OPs 1 & 2 directly and had booked his tour for Kashmir from them for the relevant period by directly paying an amount of ₹ 1,85,150/-.  However, there is no iota of evidence on record suggesting that the complainant ever contacted OP-3 or that OP-1 is the franchise of OP-3 and thus the complainant has failed to prove cause of action against OP-3.
   4. Moreover, when it stands proved on record that the complainant has intimated OPs 1 & 2 well in advance about the cancellation of the tour due to his ill health and the aforesaid OPs had assured the complainant that the said amount would be remitted in his account and same has not been done till date, the said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted by OPs 1 & 2.
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   6. Now coming to the quantum of relief to be awarded to the complainant, it would be worth mentioning here that no doubt in the prayer clause of the consumer complaint the complainant has prayed for refund of ₹2,46,550/-, but, vide statement dated 31.8.2023, learned counsel for the complainant has confined the claim to refund of acknowledged amount of ₹1,85,150/- only, alongwith interest and appropriate compensation and litigation charges. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹1,85,150/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 7.6.2016 onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against OP-3, the consumer complaint against OP-3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 08/09/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member