Order-14.
Date-24/05/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint submits that she and her friend Mr. J.B. Bhattacharya opted for a tour to Russia for 3 night at St. Peters burg. 1 night in Moscow and 4 nights in Vladimir Kostroma and Posad, various places on Golden Ring Circuit. For the tour they contacted club-7 Holidays the travel company. Complainant’s case is that out of those spots, mentioned above, all were in order except one-Kostroma, where complaint was to stay for 2 nights. Complainant and her companion on 8th August afternoon started from Vladimir but they could not find the hotel named MercureKoprino Bay Hotel, through it was named in the voucher provided to complainant at Kostroma, Russia.
Complainants’ Taxi had a GPS system but its Driver could not trace out the hotel though asked many persons of the locality but they could not say where the hotel is. So finally he talked with the Hotel Manager KONSTANTIN BEIFOR over phone who told that it is nearly 200 kms from KOSTROMA, actually 216 kms as per Google Map and then the Manager advised them to search out some other hotel in Kostroma surrounding area.
Their driver tried hard knocking at 10-12 hotels for stay but no room was available but in the meantime already 5-20 pm passed. Complainant again called the reserved hotel Manager, who supported their suggestion to try Yaroslavi which was about 70 kms away. It was a 4 star hotel where they reached after 7 p.m. and they paid for 2 nights to stay when it was 9-30 pm.
The Complainant and her companion were harassed due to such a negligent manner of service. Complainant informed them of the problem but nobody answered. After reaching at Kolkata, complainant told CLUB7 to read the e-mail and act accordingly complainant claimed hotel tariff already paid in advance for the hotel Kostroma where they were supposed to stay for two nights and booked one Double Beded room with breakfast and extra 4000 rubles what the Taxi charged them for the search and for reaching Yaroslav. After reaching Kolkata complainant visited the O.P.’s office for several times and though they expressed sympathy, but till date they did not communicate to the complainant and no compensation is received by her from the O.P.’s end.
In the Written Version the op states that the complaint is frivolous, based on concocted stories. The op denies all the allegations made against her.
Op states that the present complaint is not maintainable there is no cause of action against the op.
Op states that the complaint has to prove that she and her companion faced problem due to the activity of CLUB-7.Complainant has to prove that op failed to discharge his liability.Complainant cannot claim compensation against Club-7. Because there is no deficiency of service on the part of the op.
Op states that complainant requested the op for booking of hotel and arrangement for VISA for the tour to Russia and paid consideration amount and op has provided service as per agreed terms.
Complainant wanted to board at Hotel Kostroma at Volga but they booked another hotel named MercuroCoprino Bay Hotel, Rybinsk, at the same rate through on agent, Salvia Travels Pvt. Ltd New Delhi. Prior to make payment complainant checked particulars of the hotels through Google Maps.
It is a known fact that Booking Cannot be modified once confirmed.
Complainant’s statement that she did not set time to check the location of the hotel is a blatant tie. Complainant could have enquired with the hotel authority for her query as referred in the hotel voucher.
As such, Complainant failed to prove al allegations made against the op. So her complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reason
On proper evaluation of the argument as advanced by both the parties and also complaint and written version including the documents it is found that main question or dispute is whether the complainant asked the O.P. to book any Hotel in District Rubinsk of Russia and further question is what was the requirement of the complainant about their booking of hotels and further question is whether hotel MercureKoprino Bay Hotel is situated at Kostroma, Russia.
From the letter of O.P. sent to the complainant RatnaSen via E-Mail on July 17th 2015 it is clear that O.P. himself sent a plan of hotel and about tickets etc. and it is specifically mentioned in that letter sent by SoumendraMajumder on behalf of O.P. hotel accommodation shall be booked at St. Petersburg Hotel at St. Petersburg for the period from 3rd August to 6th August 2015 Cermos hotel at Moscow from 6th August to 7th August 2015at Amax Golden Ring Hotel Vladimir for the period from 7th August to 8th August 2015, at Volga, Hotel Kostroma for the period from 8th August to 10th August and at Posadenski, Hotel Sergivposed for the period from 10th August to 11th August and by sending that letter O.P. requested the complainant to confirm the same by e-mail on 17th July 2015.
O.P. by putting Question No.-7 to the complainant assured that O.P. is one of the reputed tour operator in the field of tourism and for providing services to the client so it is proved that O.P. is a renowned tour operator and takes all responsibilities of booking tickets, VISA and also for booking hotels as per requirement of the customers and relying upon their reputation complainant availed of their service by paying Rs.96,392/-.
Considering the above fact and also admission of the O.P. it is clear that as per e-mail of the O.P. dated 17/07/2015 Hotel Kostroma at Volga was required to be booked. O.P. also mentioned that they were going to book hotel Kostroma at Volga for the period from 8th August to 10th August 2015 that was confirmed by the complainant on the same date.
No doubt O.P. booked a hotel named MercureCoprino Bay Hotel at Kostroma, Russia and that is noted in the booking information. So relying upon that booking information complainant was satisfied that the said hotel was situated at Kostroma, Russia, but on arrival at Kostroma complainant failed to search out that hotel at Kostroma (Russia). But after proper search when the said hotel was not found in Kostroma (Russia) complainant talked over phone with hotel manager who reported that same is not within Kostroma but within District Rybinsk and inter distance between Rybnisk and Kostroma is about 200 kms. And so that Manager requested the complainant to search a hotel nearer to Kostroma and finding no other alternative complainant somehow searched out a hotel at a distance of 70 Kms. from Kostroma by paying huge money and stayed there, when no hotel was available at Kostroma city.
In this regard we have searched out internet geographical data of Russia and also the different places where hotel for tourists are situated, published by the Tourism Directorate, Govt. of Russia and after collecting the details of the area Kostroma it is found that it is located at the right after bridge Volga River and in the letter through e-mail dated 17/07/2015 sent by SoumendraNath Banerjee on behalf of the O.P. it is proved that hotel at Kostroma at Volga from 8th August to 10th August 2015 was booked and in the booking information it noted against hotel details name of the hotel is MercureCoprino Bay Hotel at Kostroma, Russia so there was no chance on the part of the complainant to think otherwise that the said hotel was not situated at Kostroma, Russia.
In this context, we have also searched out the Atlas of Russia wherefrom it is found that Rybinsk District is situated at a distance of 173.5 Kms. From Kostroma but MercureCoprino Bay Hotel is situated at Vill. Yasenevo and the distance in between Kostroma and Yasenevo is about 321 Kms. And air distance is about 199 Kms. So considering that it is clear that MercureCoprino Bay Hotel is not situated at Kostroma and not on the side of Volga River but it is far away from Kostroma at a distance of 321 Kms. on road from Kostroma. Then question is why in the booking information Kostroma, Russia was noted, when it is fact that O.P. is an international travel and tour conductor with international repute confirmed that Hotel Kostroma was booked, but O.P. with same oblique reason to defraud the complainant with connivance with the hotel MercureCoprino Bay Hotel included the word Kostroma, Russia so that complainant cannot realize what would be her fate on the arrival at Kostroma. So apparently it is proved that confirmed booking at Hotel Kostroma was not actually done by O.P. in place of that with an ulterior motive somehow booked MercureCoprino Bay Hotel near Yasenovo knowing fully well that is not at Kostroma but far away from Kostroma and at a distance of 321 Kms. from Kostroma.
But even then with the help of the Hotel authority and booking authority O.P. managed to include the word Kostroma which is no doubt unfair trade practice when O.P. confirmed that they booked Hotel Kostroma at Volga as per itinerary of the O.P. confirmed by the complainant. It was the business responsibility of the service provider O.P. to inform the complainant in writing that practically they failed to book any hotel at Volga viz Kostroma but that was not informed but in lieu of that to deceive the complainant with connivance with the hotel authority and booking agent noted Kostroma, Russia knowing fully well that said hotel is situated at far distance of 321 Kms. from Hotel Kostroma and as an international tour agency O.P. was aware of the fact that MercureCoprino Bay Hotel is not situated at the side of Volga and even then such an unfair path was adopted by the O.P. and in fact complainant is not the daily visitor in Russia but as per itinerary of the O.P. to visit such places confirmed the itinerary and completely deposited the amount in respect of other hotels O.P. booked it properly and complainant got service on their arrival at these places but only in respect of hotel Kostroma, Volga complainant was fully deceived by the O.P. Though it is found from the internet map that at city Kostroma on the side Volga river there were two hotels named Hotel Volga and Hotel Kostroma and the question is for what reason O.P. did not book Hotel Kostroma though said hotel was situated at Volga and same was not reported.
On overall evaluation of materials and facts we are convinced to hold that O.P. has failed to provide any cogent evidence why in booking information against Hotel details in bold word Kostroma, Russia was noted and there is no such explanation for what reason O.P. did not report to complainant by e-0mail that they failed to book hotel Kostroma at Volga but in lieu of that they booked hotel MercureCoprino Bay Hotel at a far distance of 321 Kms. from Kosrtroma at Yasenevo and if it would be reported to complainant, she had scope to cancel that booking because they had their no interest to enjoy any part of district Rybinsk or Yasenevo but complainant failed to get such chance. But on the other hand complainant was harassed for sending some misguiding information by booking information e-mailed by the O.P. and it is no doubt deceitful manner of trade on the part of the O.P. and also negligent and deficient manner of service rendered by the O.P. when O.P. confirmed that they, as per the itinerary O.P. confirmed the booking of hotel at Kostroma, Russia but it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that the said booking was fictitious booking and for which complainant ultimately had to search out another hotel named hotel Yarslavi and somehow stayed there for two nights and spent more than Rs.25,000/- for the latches and negligence on the part of the O.P. and also for deceitful manner of trade.
In fact, complainant was also harassed to search out a hotel nearer to Kostroma after searching for four hours got a hotel not at Kostroma but all these facts have not been denied by the O.P.
However, O.P. has tried to convince that they discharged their service by booking the hotel, so they have their no negligence and deficiency.
However, considering the materials and written version it is clear that O.P. has not denied the fact. But only their defence is that they discharge their services. But the above materials discussed are sufficient to hold that O.P. adopted unfair trade practice and did not book any hotel at Volga or any hotel adjacent to Volga. On the other hand, booked a hotel at a far distance from Kostroma but in the booking information it is noted that Kostroma, Russia and invariably it is done with the connivance with the hotel authority. So deficient and negligent manner of service on the part of the O.P. and deceitful manner of act on the part of the O.P. is proved very well and at the same time it is well proved that complainant and her party were harassed for such sort of deceitful manner of act and at the same time were compelled to spent further Rs.25,000/- for the stay at Hotel by further booking though they already paid that amount to the O.P. for hotel at Kostroma but O.P. deceived the complainant.
In the light of the above materials and findings complaints succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint be and same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.P. is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and agony and for adopting deceitful manner of trade by misrepresentation and for negligent and deficient manner of service as rendered.
O.P. is hereby directed to pay the entire decreetal amount i.e. total of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which O.P. shall have to pay penal damages of Rs.2000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree. If it is collected it shall be deposited to the Forum.
Even if it is found that O.P. is reluctant to pay this amount then O.P. would be prosecuted u/s-25 read with Section-27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
