In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF / Unit-I / Case No. 141 / 2011.
1) Abhishek Sarkar,
2) Srimoyaa Majumdar
Both of : 2/1B, Deb Lane, Kolkata-700014. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Cox & Kings Ltd.
6, Little Russel Street, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 15 Dated 27/08/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainants Shri Abhishek Sarkar and Shri Srimoyee Majumdar against the o.p., Cox and Kings Ltd with allegation of deficiency of service. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant no.1 got from his employer (HSBC) an incentive in the form of “Gift A Holiday Vouchers’ having the benefit of facilities of Rs.92000/- which entitled the compliant to a benefit equivalent to Rs.92000/- from o.p. valid from 2.11.10 to 1.11.11 for tour. On or about 30.11.10 o.p. asked complainant no.1 to pay extra amount of Rs.1,19,453/-. The break up of the charges were as follows:
1. Air ticket Rs.44920
Processing fee including service
Tax E-Cess & H-Cess Rs.502/ Rs. 4430
2. Hotel accommodation, sight seeing Rs.49189
Transport etc. at Malaysia
3.Visa (Malaysia) Rs. 5404
Rs.103943
Less paid by Gift voucher Rs. 92000
As per complainant, o.ps. had charged Rs.4430/- as processing fees inclusive of Rs.502/- as service tax E-Cess and H-Cess which was unexpected to the complainants. The charges for Malaysian visa as quotation of o.p. was Rs.1500/-, i.e. Rs.3000/- for the two complainants. Thus the extra demands of o.ps. is amounting Rs.2404/- (Rs.5404 – Rs.3000). Complainants verbally protested against the aforesaid demand, but they paid Rs.11,943/- in cash to the representative of o.p. Ultimately, as a matter of fact, complainants arrived from Langkawsai to Kuala Lumpur by flight and were picket up from airport by the agents and transported to a hotel and as per tour programme the check in time was 14-00 hrs. and check out was 12-00 hrs. on 11.12.10, but as per request of complainants the representative of o.p. confirm that they would be picked up from the hotel on 11.12.10 at 11-00 hrs. for transportation to Kuala Lumpur Airport to catch flight vide No.AK323 for Kolkata and as per confirmation service voucher of o.p. and the tour itinerary of the agent of o.p. they would check out from the hotel and be transported to airport for the aforesaid flight for Kolkata. The departure time of the flight vide No.AK323 was at 14-30 hrs and the check out time was fixed at 12-00 hrs. but the representative of o.p. did not come for transporting the complainants from hotel to airport within time and ultimately when complainants came to know from the reception counter of the hotel that no message from complainants had been sent by o.ps. to the hotel. Ultimately, complainants checked out from the hotel at 12-00 hrs. for airport and they hired a cab paying Rs.2250/- to reach the airport. But they could not avail of the scheduled flight hiring another cab for Rs.750/- they went to another counter in search of two tickets for Kolkata after great deal of efforts complainant succeeded in purchasing two air tickets for Delhi by flight No.MH 190 (Malaysia Airlines) on the same date in the evening by an expensing ticket amount of Rs.44,965.75 they reached Delhi in the night of 11.12.10 and they had no alternative but to stay at Delhi in a lodge by paying Rs.2000/-. Thereafter, they had to incur Rs.15,384/- for air tickets from Delhi to Kolkata and taxi fare Rs.300/- from lodge of Delhi and Delhi Airport and ultimately they reached to Kolkata. Complainants repeatedly requested the o.p. to pay these expenses as mentioned above to the complainants by o.ps. which was incurred only due to negligence and deficiency in service of o.p. but all in vain. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
After scrutinising thoroughly and looking between the lines of the instant case, the bench is of the opinion that the complainant is a “consumer” under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants had visited Malaysia for purely vocational purposes through the o.p. with the aid of a gift voucher of worth Rs 92,000 obtained from H.S.B.C. –- the employer of complainant 1. It is observed by the Forum that none would actually intentionally miss their flight and spend extra money, even borrow it from relatives to fly back to an unknown city(Delhi) of their country, eventually spend a night in a hotel of another city, then again catch a flight back to their own city(Kolkata), and drown themselves in a swarm of problems. Also, the bench finds no cozen evidence being provided by the o.p.s which can prove that the o.p.s had actually sent a cab to the complainants’ hotel to ferry them from their hotel to the Airport, which had actually been an integral part of the tour program. Hence, we are of the opinion that due to the deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the o.ps, the complainants had to face immense suffering in a foreign land and later in an unknown city added with intense mental agony. Additionally, they also had to face financial problems due to this callous loop-hole of the o.p.
Hence
ordered, the case of the complainant is allowed in part with cost.
The o.p. is directed to pay Rs.1,03,943/- to the complainant. The o.p. is directed to compensate the complainants with Rs 25,000 within three months, delay in which will invite an interest at the rate of 9.5% per month on the gross amount. Also, they are directed to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation costs to the complainant.
Supply copy to the parties free of cost.
_____Sd-_____ _____Sd-______ _______Sd-_____
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
