Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/156/2002

Fatech Chand Jain, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cox and Kings India Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Aruna Ganesh

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  18.03.2002

                                                                        Date of Order :  13.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 156 /2002

THURSDAY THIS  13^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

1. Fateh Chand Jain,

“Pushp Vatika,

28, Appu Second Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.  

 

2. Ntin Jain,

Minor Rep. by father

F.C. Jain,

Pushp Vatika 28

Appu Second Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 4.                                                         .. Complainants

 

                                   ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Cox and Kings India Limited,

Rep. by the

The Managing Director,

Grindlays Bank Building,

270/271, Dr.D.N.Road,

Mumbai 400 001.

 

2. M/s. Cox and Kings India Limited,

Rep. by the

Branch Manager,

No.11, Rangam Ceebros,

Cenotaph Road,

Chennai 600 018.                                                        ..Opposite parties 

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. Aruna Ganesh    

For the opposite parties              :   M/s. Mohamed Rafi & another  

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay  cost of the complaint to the complainants

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II     

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

            The  complainants submit that  he booked “European Splendours” through travel agent Arihant  Worldwide at Chennai for the travel to be made on 11.5.2000 by paying Rs.23,265/- for each person by remitting deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- dated 23.4.2000 for first two persons and another Rs.20,000/ dated 23.4.2000.    The opposite party Cox and King gave a “client confirmation voucher” for all the four members of the complainant describing about the arrival flights from Bombay to Frankfurt and Frankfurt to Paris on 12^th May and the departure flight from LHR to Frankfurt on 31.5.2000 and from Frankfurt to Madras on the same day to be schedule to reach destination at 00.05 hours.  As per confirmation voucher Hotels / flights / Itinerary were subject to change without prior notice, Airport to Hotel and Hotel to Airport transfers were only provided to Pax travelling as per group.   The two confirmation vouchers along with two description for 20 days and 19 nights were supplied to the complainant by the opposite party Cox and Kings.  

2.     The complainant in his complaint  addressed to the opposite party dated 30.6.2000 complaining that the travel package advised and sold by the opposite party was not carried out as mentioned in the brochure.   It was alleged that the tour manager who guided the tour was not conversant with the place of visit and the complainant mentioned along with his family members other 8 members were also accompanied with them whose names were mentioned in his letter addressed to the opposite party.   It was complained that they were groping around Europe without guide to explain the relevance of tour where they have visited some places.  The next allegation was the non adherence of the time schedule and alleged that the complainant was cheated and defrauded by the opposite party.   It was complained that the first day of schedule to be started at 10.30 a.m. on 12^th May by embarking on the Frankfurt-Paris   was reschedule at 1.00 pm flight for the delayed arrival of the flight at Paris.   Because of the delay there were some of the places were dropped out on the scheduled programme.   The other allegation,  on 13^th May 2000 Masala Tea was not provided and the dinner was served on the road side in disgraceful manner.  On 15^th May as per the Brochure it was promised that they would be taken to folklore where the opposite party had collected 85 us $ per person which was cancelled.   On 17^th May  Gondolas trip to Lucerne was also cancelled.  On 18^th May, they stayed at the hotel Madrid did not fructify and the Masala tea was not provided.  On 19^th May 2000 insufficient quantity bread and dal were provided and they delayed in 7 hours in taking the tourists to a perfume factory resulting in skipping of excursion to cannes etc.   On 21^st May 2000 at Florence  due to the absence of guide the walking tour was cancelled.   At Rome, due the absence of guide the complainants were not able to see the historic monument of  Kappelbruoke and the shopping programe at Gubeline  were also cancelled.  On 16^th May 2000 140 us $  were collected to see the top of Europe neither they were guided nor were allowed to visit top of Europe.  On this day they were pushed into an overcrowded train to climb up the hills and they were given only 45 minutes to visit and assemble.   Even after paying 140 us $ per person they were not given considerable time to visit.   On 25^th May 2000 the opposite party at Germany were not taken to famous Mercedes Benz Museum and they were not able to see the Rhineland area and they could not visit Titisee and on 30^th May 2000 they could not dine at the Chor Bizzare-voted as one of  the  famous Indian Restaurants in Landon.   Because of this the complainant forfeited 28 us $ towards the cost of the promised dinner.   Further it is complained  without a guide they could not visit Signoria Square, Santa Croce Basilia, Baptistry, Perruzi, Piazza Venezia, arch of constantine and the Circus Maximus in Rome.  On 24^th May 2000 the visit to Doge’s Palace was given up.   It was stated by the complainant because of the in experience of the tour manager they were forced to skip lot of places of visit.  As such, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   As such the complainants sought for to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/-  for each complainants and for deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony  redemption value in respect of tour for 2001, 2002, 2003 @ 150 us $  and also to pay  cost of the complaint to the complainants.     Hence the complaint.  

Written version of opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

3.     The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties filed version and contended inter alia that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties submit that Air, rail, road, and other departure times, are supplied by the carriers.  They are subject to inter alia, air traffic control restrictions, weather conditions, the need for constant maintenance and the ability of passengers to check in on time.  There is no guarantee that departures well take place of the time shown either in this Brochure or in tickets.   There is no question of mental agony on the part of the complainant and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

4.   Complainants have filed their Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked on the side of the  opposite parties. 

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

6.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainants and their proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6  marked on the side of the complainant,  written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7  marked on the side of opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.

7.        The complainant booked “European Splendours” Tour through travel agent Arihant  Worldwide, vide file No.NNA/DD /SPL 85 dated 23.4.2000 for the complainant and his son Jain Nitin, Spouse M/s. Pusha Jain and daughter Jain Nitin at Chennai for the travel to be made on 11.5.2000 by paying Rs.23,265/- for each person by paying deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.BR2000218 dated 23.4.2000 for first two persons and another Rs.20,000/ vide receipt No.BR 2000219 dated 23.4.2000 which comprise of tour price and such charges visa charges, taxes, medi claim and POE as per the order form submitted to this Forum (Ex.A1).    The opposite party Cox and King gave a “client confirmation voucher”  for all the four members of the complainant describing about the arrival flights from Bombay to Frankfurt and Frankfurt to Paris on 12^th May and the departure flight from LHR to Frankfurt on 31.5.2000 and from Frankfurt to Madras on the same day to be schedule to reach destination at 00.05 hours.   It was clearly mentioned in the confirmation voucher under Ex.A2   Hotels / flights / Itinerary were subject to change without prior notice, Airport to Hotel and Hotel to Airport transfers were only provided to Pax travelling as per group.   The two confirmation vouchers along with two description for 20 days and 19 nights were supplied to the complainant by the opposite party Cox and Kings.  

8.     The complainant in his complaint  addressed to the opposite party dated 30.6.2000 complaining that the travel package advised and sold by the opposite parties were not carried out as mentioned in the brochure   It was alleged that the tour manager who guided on the tour was not conversant with the place of visit and the complainant mentioned along with his family members other 8 members were also accompanied with them whose name were mentioned in his letter addressed to the opposite party.   It was complained that they were groping around Europe without guide to explain the relevance of tour where they have visited some places.   The next allegation was the non adherence of the time schedule and alleged that the complainant was cheated and defrauded by the opposite party.   It was complained that the first day of schedule to be started at 10.30 a.m. on 12^th May by embarking on  Frankfurt-Paris   was reschedule at 1.00 pm flight for the delayed arrival of the flight at Paris.  Because of the delay there were some of the places were dropped out on the programme.   The other allegation on 13^th May 2000 Masala Tea was not provided and the dinner was served on the road side in disgraceful manner.  On 15^th May as per the Brochure it was promised that they would be taken to Swiss folklore show where the opposite party had collected 85 us $ per person which was cancelled.   On 17^th May  Gondolas trip to Lucerne was also cancelled.  On 18^th May, they stayed at the hotel Madrid did not fructify and the Masala tea was not provided.  On 19^th May 2000 insufficient quantity of bread and dal were provided and they delayed in 7 hours in taking to a perfume factory resulting in skipping of excursion to cannes etc.   On 21^st May 2000 at Florence  due to the absence of guide the walking tour was cancelled.   At Rome, due to the absence of guide the complainants were not able to see the historic monument of  Kappelbruoke and the shopping programe at Gubeline  were also cancelled.  On 16^th May 2000 140 us $  were collected to see the top of Europe neither they were guided were allowed to visit top of Europe.  On this day, they were pushed into an overcrowded train to climb up the hills and they were given only 45 minutes to visit and assemble.   Even after paying 140 us $ per person they were not given considerable time to visit.   On 25^th May 2000 the opposite party at Germany were not taken to famous Mercedes Benz Museum and they were not able to see the Rhineland area and they could not visit Titisee and on 30^th May 2000 they could not dine at the Chor Bizzare-voted as one of  the  famous Indian Restaurants in Landon.   Because of this the complainant forfeited 28 $ towards the cost of the promised dinner.   Further it was complained without a guide they could not visit Signoria Square, Santa Croce Basilia, Baptistry, Perruzi, Piazza Venezia arch of counstantine and the Circus Maximus in Rome.  On 24^th May 2000 the visit to Doge’s Palace was given up.   It was stated by the complainant because of the in experience of the tour manager they were forced to skip lot of places of visit and it was alleged the opposite parties having collected the consideration proper service and guidance  were not given to the complainant which is a pure negligence on the part of the opposite parties and pleading to re-compensate the negligence and deficiency of service.

9.     The opposite parties had replied to the complainants on 18^th July 2000 that delayed flight and suppliers fault were a force majeure where the opposite parties are not liable for any delays which may arise on the part of the suppliers or carriers and it is stated that they done their no direct control over the suppliers where they cannot held liable.  It was stated that the food supplied at the open area which were prepared by the caravans and the opposite party had informed the complainant that the Swiss Floklore show was cancelled one month prior to departure and the participants of the tour are entitled for refund of US $ 15 for adults and Us $ 10 for children.   The allegation of the crowd in the train during the middle  of May, where the opposite party were held responsible.   It was stated that the five other passengers who accompanied with the complainant did not come down for a hour and a half more and which delayed the entire group from seeing Trummelbach falls regarding Jungfraujoch ride it had not been promised by the Tour Organization.   It was agreed by the opposite parties to refund USD of 5 per person on 19th May lunch expense. 

10.    Due to Holy celebration in the year 2000 the roads were closed to private coaches entering the city of Rome hence they were forced to modify / change, alter the sequence  and operations of some of the sightseeing in Rome.  The complainant did saw the Doge’s  Palace, St. Marc’s Square, St. Marco Cathedral, Murano Glass Factory.    It was alleged the group deviates from the itinerary, then it was at own risk some members of the group paid the driver directly and all went to Swarovski Museum and they arrived 15 minutes late resulting in missing the Benz which was consequently closed.   It is contended because of the violation of  time schedule by the group in not maintaining the time as prescribed some of the places were forced to miss.   It was agreed by the opposite parties to refund 4 us $ for four masala tea which were claimed by the complainants with reference to the Dinner at Landon.   It was also stated by the opposite parties the refund was given by the ground handlers  in Landon. (Ex.A4).   It was stated by the opposite parties that they had send the refund voucher by way of cheque No.297713, dated 31.7.2000 for a sum of Rs.4,224/- which was refunded of Swiss Floklore show for amounting to Rs.2640/- and lunch expense on 19^th May 2000 for Rs.880/- and for four masala tea Rs.704/-.    Following this the complainant served the legal notice to the opposite parties on 31.8.2000 seeking refund of Rs.23,265/- of the entire cost plus Rs.2275 $ and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.50,000 per head for mental agony under Ex.A5.   The opposite party had responded on 15^th October 2000 denying the allegation and explained the various point put forth by the complainant’s counsel , hence the complainant lodged this complaint at this forum on 5.4.2002. 

11.    The opposite parties stated that the complainant had impleaded the Brach office at Chennai who does not have legal entity and register office only has got the authority for the arrangement of the said tour, finalization of the said tour programme of the register office of the opposite party at Mumbai.   In the absent of any agreement between the parties u/s 11 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986  the forum in Mumbai alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint ant at Chennai does not jurisdiction to entertain the said claim.  The dispute cited by the complainant false within the jurisdiction of Mumbai courts it is put forth by the opposite party that the complaint cannot be placed before the forum at Chennai.  It is observed that the complainant resides in Chennai and purchased the ticket at Chennai.   Where the branch office of opposite party situates at Chennai, hence the territorial jurisdiction of filing of this complaint in Chennai. 

12.    As a pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned the complainant instead of filing one petition he deprecated the complaint by diving in two complaint as O.P.156/2000 and O.P. No.157/2000 where the complainant was communicated with the opposite party representing three other members of the same family who were his spouse and children.  It is further brought the notice of the forum  the complainant filed  two cases and diverted the forum to avail monetary gain where the same cause of action and allegation put forth against the opposite party.   The complainant had failed to prove the deficiency with the cogent evidence to substantiate his claim after enjoying the tour which is baseless.   The complainant who booked the order on 23.4.2000 signed in the booking form for all the members of the family and communicating with the opposite parties on behalf of the family members alleging that he could not enjoy the tour and citing deficiency of delayed flight timings and non performance of the tour guide.   It is put forth by the opposite parties  that they shall not be any manner liable to the client in the event that the tour is required to be cancelled either in full or in part before or after it commencement due to force  majeure or Vis Major Force Majeure shall include war, threat of war, riot, civil disobedience of strife, industrial dispute, terrorist activity acts of good, natural or unclear disaster, fire, adverse weather conditions, level of water, technical or maintenance problems with transport  and changes of schedules or operational decisions of transport providers, closure of airports or any unforeseeable or unavoidable event beyond the control of opposite parties.  Force Majeure  or Vis Major shall include situations in which there is apprehension or threat that circumstances falling under Force Majeure of Vis Major may arise.

13.    The complainant already given the terms and condition tour brochure the booking form the payment receipts to the complainant and in the said tour voucher in page No.30 it has been clearly mentioned “ In Rome due to holy celebration in year 2000 the road may be closed to private coacher entering the city this may force to modify change,  and operation of sightseeing in Rome the sight done by the food or public transport.    The allegations made by the complainant are in correct which was informed to the tour participate well in advance. 

14.    The opposite party denies  the discount of  150 us $ per year is offered per person for the next three years to the complainants have availing the “European Splendours tour”.  It  was stated in the year 2000 the opposite party had floated a promotional scheme either a redemption offer or by given cash given 500 us $ per adult and 250 us $ per child equivalent  to Indian Rs.44 per dollar or a free holiday in certain places as contemplated by the booklet and the Loyalty voucher with face 150 us $ per heads and 75 us $ for children for next years the benefit was to get discount in the tour price of any “Duniya Dekho” or Bharat Dekho promoted by the opposite party and accordingly the complainant received the “Loyalty voucher” and availed the discounts where the complainant supposed to pay a tour cost of Rs.45,265/- per person and availed discount of 50% per person balance Rs.23,265/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party and the receipt of payment by the opposite party was not disputed.  The tour price never includes the cost of loyalty voucher of the redemption voucher.  Regarding the allegations made in the departure of the flight is not within the facility of the tour operator.  It depends on the weather condition, technical snake and operation inspections of the air authority.   The delay in flight by four hours is not by the operator it is by the air authority where the flight has been which resulted to re-scheduling of the trip at the foreign land.  It was denied by the sightseeing as envisaged by the itinerary on 12^th May was done on 13^th  May except the visit to Eiffel  tower which was done on 12 May itself.   

15.    The non compliance of visit tour Swiss Folklore show they offered the refund of USD 15 which was refused by the complainant to accept the same. The opposite party had extended to refund 15 us $ due to cancellation of Swiss Folklore show.   The group of the complainant was in Lucerne from 3.15 p.m. till 7.00 pm.  Gubelin & Bucherer were two of the shops covered  and the group tour leader took them kappelbruche  famous bridge were they did visits theses places and making allegation on the opposite party was completely denied.   In the itinerary itself the opposite party had mentioned where the “free day” and it was optional for the tour participate to chose the tour prgramme and visit important places as they desire.    It was further denied that the complainant are entitle to the refund of 140 us $ for the alleged deficiency.     In addition forum members cited in the complaints 156/2000 and 157/2000 the other members who accompanied with them has not been any complaints as regards the dinner at Landon the other participant name in the complaint had received a refund of 240 us $ for his family members which was referred in annexure-7.   It was beyond the control of the opposite party certain places were missed because of the non co-operation in maintaining the time schedule prescribed to them and the opposite party offered a refund Rs.4,224/- on 8^th 2004 which was rejected by the complainant.  Most of the allegation raised by the complainant was non-provision of tea, insufficient food, and missing out of certain sightseeing places, which were not brought to the notice of the tour operators immediately and to the best of their effort the vegetarian  food was arranged as provided in the brochure which elucidate the term and conditions of the contract between the complainant and the opposite party.

16.    The opposite party had clearly stated in the terms and conditions “air, rail, road and other departure times are supplied by the carriers. They are  subject to inter alia, air traffic control restriction, weather conditions, the need for consent maintenance  and the ability of passenger to check in on time.   There is no guarantee that departure will take place at the time shown either in this broachers or in your tickets the timings are estimates only.  The opposite party does not have any liability to the participant for any which may arise.  Further the dealings of participate with all carrier some of which may limits are exclude liability.  If the alternative arrangement for which claimant are paid the company shall made the different amount to the return tour similarly if alter are superior to the arrangement for which client the company shall recover differ.

17.    If in respect of any services provided by any of the independent contract the claim immediate inform tour manager.  The client shall immediately hand over the copy thereof to the tour manager at the time of problem occurs in order to enable the company to take up the matter with inpendent contract.     

18.    The contract between the company and the client and every matter arising it shall be governed by and consumed in accordance with Indian Contract Act and shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction and tribunal of Mumbai.   

19.    Pursuant on the complaint, written version, proof affidavit, documents filed by the complainants and the opposite parties and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel of both the sides we found the opposite party had issued the brochure to undertake a tour to Europe  and get a free holiday to Austria plus loyalty  voucher  of US $  150 per year for the next year.  Dueal Duno dekho the travel club the division of Cox and King India Limited which described about the free loyalty year us $ 150 per year along with loyalty voucher / 150 $ with terms and conditions of Cox and kings to the complainant on executing the tour to Europe.  

20.    The learned counsel of the complainant argued that though the tour was enjoyed by the participant but the historical importance of certain sightseeing places were not properly explained by the guide and in experience tour guidance was provided and in total the tour was not properly organized and the delay of the flight for five hours resulting in rearrangement of tour  and missing of most important sightseeing places.

21.    There was a deficiency in providing Jain food like masala tea, and vegetarian food were not supplied to the satisfaction of the complainant.  the opposite party had accepted the complainants allegations of refunding certain amounts like provision of masala tea,  food at Landon where the opposite party had offered refund of  Rs.4,224/- with a voucher to be signed by the complainant for four members which was denied.   There was no immediate action by the complainant to discharge the voucher with no protest, whisper, world or syllable by sending his protest either way or by the telegram to show his protest.  

22.    The complainant had intimated to the opposite parties only on 30^th June 2000 about the deficiencies and problems that he had faced during the tour.  But as per the contract the complainant has to inform the opposite party within 28 days about the allegations or deficiencies  they found which the complainant failed to do so.    

23.    The complainant states there was the delay of the flight by five hours from Frankfurt to Paris resulting in reschedule of the entire programme by the tour operators.  It is pertinent to quote the citation of Supreme court of India Case No. Civil appeal 4925/2011 (Arising out of SLP ©No.21108 /2010 ) Legal Service Authorities Act 1987  secs.19, 22B(1) D,D, & E, Civil Procedure code 1908 Indian Evidence Act 1872 Carriage of  Air Act 1972 – Sections 4 to 6,8, & 8 (2), Aircraft Rules 1937 - Rules 133A & 134 – Travel “if delay was due to reasons beyond the control of airline – if appellant and its  crew have acted reasonably – in a bona fide manner -  appellant cannot be made liable to pay damages even if there has been some inconvenience to a passenger on account of delay.”    As per civil aviation guide line the delay of the flight as caused by an event of forced majeure the tour operator are not held liable.    In order to support this delayed arrival of air lines the judgments I (1992) CPJ 5 (NC) P. Gopinathan ..Vs.. The Chairman, Air India which explains “It often happens that the flights of airlines are delayed due to various reason as have been time and again stated by them the complainant should have made enough allowance for such contingency.  It is held in III (1997) CPJ 119 NC  Indian Airlines Ltd ..Vs..  Dr. V.J. Philip  held that  “Negligent of air lines delay in flight due to bad weather it is clearly specified in the judgment that air lines would not be responsible for bad weather and poor visibility.   The Corporation reserves  itself the right without assigning any reason, to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place or places or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground whatsoever.    Accordingly the delay in flight from Frankfurt to Paris lies with the airlines and it not with the opposite parties.   

24.    The opposite party had already issued in their brochure  during may 2000 there were lot of festival in Rome which will distract the entry of the traffic in to the city where by the enroute may be altered according to prevailing situation.   During May 1^st the  Games of Flora continue, sacrifice to Maia, anniversary of the temple of Bona Dea on the Aventine, rites for the Lares Praestities, tutelaries of the city of Rome.  May 3^rd in the Imperial period, a last celebration for Flora, or the anniversary of one of her temples, May 9, 11, & 13^th Lemuria, a festival of the dead with both public and household rites, possibly with a sacrifice to Mania on the 11^th  May 14^th Anniversary of the temple of MARS Inveictus (Mars the Unconquered), a second procession of the argei,  May 15^th Mercuralia, in honor of Mercury, Feriae of Jove, May 21^st one of  four Agonalia, probably a third festival for vediovis, May 23^rd a second Tublilustrum, Feriae for Volcanus (Vulcan), May 24^th QRCF, following Tubilsustrium as in March, May 25^th Anniversary of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia.  The allegation put forth by the complainant that most of the historical place could not be seen by the complainant is beyond the control of opposite party. 

25.    The other allegation made crowd in the train during summer day will always be there in Europe.  If you see the life style of Europe  and  they use to travel during summer time a lot.   The crowd in the train could not be avoided for which the opposite parties were not held liable.

26.    Most of the European hotels they serve continental food and especially during night time most of the food were served outside the hotel especially on the road side, in order to enjoy with continental  food and other drinks.  As Indians our customs are entirely different from  that of Europeans.    The pure vegetarian food Jain food is very difficult to get in Europe unless it is arranged by the tour operator by caravans.   Hence making the participants to sit outside / road side hotel it is not intentional it is customer at  foreign land hence this allegation could not be accepted by this forum.   The provision of masala tea, bread and butter normally in the hotels it is the participants who has to take self serving what is kept inside the restaurant  as you like on the menus kept therein.   It is up to the participant, which is, either masala tea, or coffee, or milk, or fruit, whatever the dishes the participants feel deem fit it is no question of failure on the part of opposite party had not provided masala tea or sufficient bread to them.  It was stated that they have provided an experienced tour guide which was not agreed by the opposite parties.   In normal practice the language barriers where we could not understood properly when the participant were travelling outside the country. 

27.    On hearing both learned counsels arguments and having gone through the written version and the terms and conditions provided by the opposite parties, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties made their utmost efforts in organizing the tour but the delay in flight / carrier is  beyond the control of the tour operators.   It is appreciable that the guide had shown most of the places mentioned in the itinerary but skipping of certain sightseeing places are warranted because of the time constraints  

28.    It is observed that the complainant had made two complaint i.e. C.C.156/2002, and CC.157/2002 which could have been made under a single C.C.  for the same cause of action where the complainant booked the tour and communications made to the opposite parties by the same person who is the head of the family. 

29.    It is observed that  the opposite party have already agreed to refund of Rs.4,224/- as refund which was denied by the complainant is not justifiable.   Since the complainant availed the entire tour and seeking refund of Rs.23,265/- is not acceptable and  the refund of loyalty voucher claimed by the complainants  will not arise,  since the complainant already availed the discount of Rs.22,000/- from the component of Rs.45,265/- payable by each participants.   

30.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties had accepted the liability for refund of Rs.4,224/-  which is not acceptable by us.  Considering the facts and circumstances,  during the pendency of this case in this proceeding the opposite parties are jointly and severally held responsible and directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fair just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of complaint to the complainants and accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered.    

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  as cost of the complaint to the complainants within six weeks from the date of this order failing which  the above  said compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. 

               Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  13^th   day  of  October  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ side documents:

Ex.A1- 23.4.2000  - Copy of Proforma Invoice issued by the opposite parties

                              To complainants.

 

Ex.A2- 7.5.2000    - Copy of client confirmation voucher along with itinerary and

                             Travel trip.

Ex.A3- 30.6.2000  - Copy of letter issued by Complainants to opposite parties.

Ex.A4- 18.7.2000  - Copy of opposite party’s letter to complainant.

Ex.A5- 31.8.2000`         - Copy of legal notice issued on behalf of  complainant.

Ex.A6- 15.10.2000         - Copy of reply received from the opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-

 

Ex.B1- 20.9.2001  - Copy of agreement.

Ex.B2- 2.9.2002    - copy of power of attorney.

Ex.B3- 23.9.2000  - Copy of term and conditions of opposite party.

Ex.B4- 30.6.2000  - Copy of legal notice by the complainant.

Ex.B5-         -       - Copy of loyalty voucher

Ex.B6-         -       - Copy of Sales and Collection report.

Ex.B7-         -       - Copy of  Travel allowance details.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.