Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

68/2008

Royapuram Rajuprathima - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cox and Kings (India) Pvt Ltd and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

P.Arumuga Rajam

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 07.02.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.68/2008

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

Rayapuram Raju Prathima,

D/o. Mr. R.P. Raju,

No.1/22 A, 3^rd Street,                                                    

Bharathi Nagar,

Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                      .. Complainant.                                               

 

           ..Versus..

1. Cox and Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.11, Rangam Ceebros,

Cenotaph Road,

Chennai – 600 018.

 

2. Qatar Airways,

Represented by its Manager,

Spencer Travel Services Ltd.,

Raja Annamalai Building Annexe,

Ground Floor,

No.18/3, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

Division IX, Homi Modi Street,

Fort,

Mumbai – 400 023.                                                 .. Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant             :  Mr. P. Arumuga Rajan

Counsel for 1^st opposite party    :  M/s. Mothilal Goda & another

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party    :  Dismissed on 12.01.2009

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party    :  M/s. Nageswaran & another

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.12,900/- towards additional package and to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service,  mental agony and compensation for not paying the complainant the immediate relief at Dubai and for delay and damage to the complainant’s baggage to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she had chosen the package known as European Discovery offered by the 1^st opposite party at a total cost of Rs.1,37,203/- intended to travel on 11.09.2006 and return back on 24.09.2006.   The complainant submits that the said package of tour containing an offer of optional additional package of Dubai Stopover at the cost of Rs.12,900/- i.e. stay at Dubai for 2 days and one night.   The complainant offered for such additional package and paid the amount.   The complainant submits that on 10.09.2006, the day before the intended tour, the 1^st opposite party gave the confirmed Air ticket to reach Dubai on 24.09.2006 and depart from Dubai on the evening of 25.09.2006 against the optional additional package.   The complainant submits that his checked in baggage was found missing at Dubai.   A complaint has given by the complainant for the missing of the checked in baggage and was traced out after inordinate delay in a damaged condition.  The complainant has kept the valuable articles inside the checked in baggage which has been collected from Europe.  The loss of checked in baggage caused great mental agony.   The complainant submits that the entire tour was insured by the 1^st opposite party with the 3^rd opposite party insurance company.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.05.2007 but the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   Thereafter, this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st  opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that the 1^st opposite party is a Legal Entity registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956.   The 1^st opposite party states that this Hon’ble Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case because alleged cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction except booking of tour alone.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant has chosen the package European Discovery intended to travel from 11.09.2006 to 24.09.2006 and an additional package of halt at Dubai on 24.09.2006 and return flight from Dubai on 25.09.2006.  The said additional package of Dubai Stopover was for one night at the option of the complainant and the tour cost included the airfare, accommodation, transfers and breakfast.  The complainant knowing fully well joined the group for the tour which terminated at Doha on 24.09.2006 and for another flight to Dubai which optionally was booked by the complainant that the complainant knowing fully well about the departure of flight and the Air Tickets etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party with regard to additional package.  The allegation of 2 days and one night at Dubai is absolutely false  because the tour ends on 24.9.2006.  The complainant is very well aware of the status and departure of flight from Dubai. 

3.     The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant booked for the checked in baggage into the hotel at Dubai on 24^th and checked out on 25^th September, 2006.  The complainant has been billed accordingly.  No additional charge has been taken from the complainant. The optional stopover to Dubai was an additional package.  The complainant was never forced to take such package.  The complainant was not given any promise of 2 days and one night stop over at Dubai.  The complainant was informed very clearly that the Dubai Stopover would be for one night and accordingly the charges were collected.   The complainant has been provided all services and the complainant has availed all services like accommodation, food, transport etc.   The 1^st opposite party states that the insurance of the complainant was done throughout with the 3^rd opposite party.   The complainant was provided with the travel insurance policy also.   If any loss occurred during the tour the complainant can very well claim the amount with the 3^rd opposite party after due notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant was given overseas mediclaim policy for a period of 47 days from 11.09.2006 to 27.10.2006 vide policy No.121800/1138/CNKO/07/103962 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.   Under the policy, loss of checked baggage was covered for USD 1,000.  The 3^rd opposite party received a claim from the complainant for compensation of missing of baggage and the same was forwarded to M/s. Heritage Health Services (P) Ltd.   Under the overseas mediclaim policy, section D (2), the complainant is entitled only for delay of checked in baggage for necessary emergency purchase (clothes, toiletries) of replacement items if the complainant suffers a delay of more than 12 hours and the proof of purchase must be proved for due reimbursement under clause 2.  The Heritage Health Service (P) Ltd., in its letter dated:16.07.2008 called for to furnish the ordinary bills/ receipts or any expenses towards emergency purchases along with copy of air ticket boarding pass / baggage tag and copy of passport.   As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the partial loss due to damage of checked in baggage is not covered.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked.   Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B2 to Ex.B4 are marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party. 

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of a sum of Rs.12,900/- paid towards additional package as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony  and compensation for not paying the complainant the immediate relief at Dubai and damage to complainant’s baggage as prayed for?

7.     On point:-        

The complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed as per the order dated:12.01.2009.  The opposite parties 1 & 3 filed their respective written arguments.  The complainant has not preferred to file any written arguments and not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.  Heard the 3^rd opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant had  chosen the package known as European Discovery offered by the 1^st opposite party at a total cost of Rs.1,37,203/- intended to travel on 11.09.2006 and return back on 24.09.2006.   Ex.A1 is the booklet issued by the 1^st opposite party.   Ex.A2 is the bill for the said amount.   Ex.A3 is the Air tickets.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the said package of tour containing an offer of optional additional package of Dubai Stopover at the cost of Rs.12,900/- i.e. stay at Dubai for 2 days and one night.   The complainant offered for such additional package and paid the amount.   But the complainant has not produced any document to prove the same. 

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 10.09.2006, the day before the intended tour, the 1^st opposite party gave the confirmed Air ticket to reach Dubai on 24.09.2006 and depart from Dubai on the evening of 25.09.2006 as per Ex.A3 against the optional additional package.  But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove such additional package of 2 days and one night at Dubai.  Further the contention of the complainant is that her checked in baggage was found missing at Dubai.  The baggage tag is marked as Ex.A5.  Due complaint has been given and was traced out after inordinate delay in a damaged condition.  The complainant has kept the valuable articles inside the checked in baggage which has been collected from Europe.  The loss of checked in baggage caused great mental agony.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the entire tour was insured by the 1^st opposite party with the 3^rd opposite party insurance company.   Ex.A4 is the Insurance policy.   Since the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the issue, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:10.05.2007 as per Ex.A9 for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.  But on a careful perusal of records, eventhough the complainant paid a sum of Rs.12,900/- for an additional package there is no document to prove that the said additional package is for 2 days and one night.    On the other hand, the complainant has availed one day at Dubai proves that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.   Equally, the allegation of  loss of checked in baggage caused great mental agony also cannot be considered because the checked in baggage was traced out and handed over to the complainant belatedly.   The complainant has not preferred to give notice for such allegation of loss to the 3^rd opposite party, Insurance Company for claiming compensation.  

9.     The learned Counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st opposite party is a Legal Entity registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956.  The complainant has not preferred to file case against the registered office of the 1^st opposite party which is registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its legal entity to sue or sued.  Ex.B1 is the terms and conditions showing the fact in detail.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that this Hon’ble Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case because alleged cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction except booking of tour alone.  As per Ex.B1, terms and conditions, the jurisdiction lies only with the D.C.D.R.F., South Mumbai.   But it is admitted that booking was done within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and hence this Hon’ble Forum is having jurisdiction to try this case.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant chosen the package European Discovery intended to travel from 11.09.2006 to 24.09.2006 and an additional package of halt at Dubai on 24.09.2006 and return flight from Dubai on 25.09.2006.  The said additional package of Dubai Stopover was for one night at the option of the complainant and the tour cost included the airfare, accommodation, transfers and breakfast.  The complainant knowing fully well joined the group for the tour which terminated at Doha on 24.09.2006 and for another flight to Dubai which optionally was booked by the complainant that the complainant knowing fully well about  the departure of flight and the Air Tickets etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party with regard to additional package.  The allegation of 2 days and one night at Dubai is absolutely false  because the tour ends on 24.9.2006.  The complainant is very well aware of the status and departure of flight from Dubai.  

10.    Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant booked for the checked in baggage into the hotel at Dubai on 24^th and checked out on 25^th September, 2006.  The complainant has been billed accordingly.  No additional charge has been taken from the complainant. The optional stopover to Dubai was an additional package.  The complainant was never forced to take such package.  The complainant was not given any promise of 2 days and one night stop over at Dubai.  The complainant was informed very clearly that the Dubai Stopover would be for one night and accordingly the charges were collected.   The complainant has been provided all services and the complainant has availed all services like accommodation, food, transport etc.  The invoice given to the complainant will prove that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the insurance of the complainant was done throughout with the 3^rd opposite party.   The complainant was provided with the travel insurance policy also.   If any loss occurred during the tour the complainant can very well claim the amount with the 3^rd opposite party after due notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. 

11.    The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the complainant was given overseas mediclaim policy for a period of 47 days from 11.09.2006 to 27.10.2006 vide policy No.121800/1138/CNKO/07/103962 subject to the terms and conditions as per Ex.B2.   Under the policy, loss of checked baggage was covered for USD 1,000.  The 3^rd opposite party received a claim from the complainant for compensation of missing of baggage and the same was forwarded to M/s. Heritage Health Services (P) Ltd.   Under the overseas mediclaim policy, section D (2), the complainant is entitled only for delay of checked in baggage for necessary emergency purchase (clothes, toiletries) of replacement items if the complainant suffers a delay of more than 12 hours and the proof of purchase must be proved for due reimbursement under clause 2.   The Heritage Health Service (P) Ltd., in its letter dated:16.07.2008 vide Ex.B4 called for to furnish the ordinary bills/ receipts or any expenses towards emergency purchases along with copy of air ticket boarding pass / baggage tag and copy of passport.   But the complainant failed to submit the above said documents.   On the other hand, the complainant’s baggage was traced out by the 2^nd opposite party and handed over to her in a damaged condition.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the partial loss due to damage of checked in baggage is not covered.   The complainant also has not pleaded and proved the deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs. 

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of booklet of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A2	08.09.2006	Copy of bill issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3		Copy of Air tickets and Hotel booking at Dubai
Ex.A4		Copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.A5	24.09.2006	Copy of complainant receipt
Ex.A6		Copy of baggage tags
Ex.A7	03.10.2006	Copy of letters of the complainant
Ex.A8		Copy of FAX receipts
Ex.A9	10.05.2007	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A10		Copy of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1

Power of Attorney

 

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B2		Copy of Policy terms and conditions
Ex.B3		Copy of Policy Schedule
Ex.B4	16.07.2008	Copy of letter by the T.P. Cell of the 3rd opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT