Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/553

Ankit Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cox & Cargo Limited - Opp.Party(s)

vyom Bansal Adv.

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 553 of 02.08.2016

   Date of Decision       :   04.12.2018 

Ankit Gupta s/o Sh.Rajesh Gupta aged 27 years r/o 226, Bharat Nagar, Near Canara Bank, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainant

Versus

Cox & Kings Limited, at 1^st Floor, Unique Tower-4, Lajpat Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

Also at:-

Cox & Kings Limited, Regd. Office:Turner Morrison Building, 16 Bank Street, Fort Mumbai-400001.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.Vyom Bansal, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Jitender Mehta, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant after being married on 10.02.2015 was aspiring to travel to Europe with his life partner for making memories of life. Op represented that tour packages offered by them meant for newlywed couples. Assurance was given for hassle free tour of Europe. Believing that representation, complainant booked “European Whirl-Winter” package for 12 days/11 nights with OP for period from 15.10.2015 to 26.10.2015 by paying amount of Rs.3,84,669/-. Assurance was given regarding visit to some iconic locations by Ms.Deepti Bajaj, Store Manager of OP at Ludhiana. Copies of itinerary receipt and payment details were provided and those along with electronic tickets, Visa and passport of complainant and his wife are attached with complaint. Though promise was made for tour to PARC ASTERIX in Paris, however after reaching in Paris, tour guide denied them visit to this place by claiming that visit is not included in the tour. Email dated 19.10.2015 immediately was sent by the complainant for raising those issues. Various other promised services even were denied. Detail of services denied are given in para no.4 (i) to (x) of complaint in terms that on first date of tour, bell boy services for picking up the luggage were not made available in the hotel, despite the fact that those were required to be provided. Consequently, complainant and his wife had to pick up the luggage, resulting in ruining all the fun of the tour. Worse arrangements were made because couple was not taken to any famous spots. Some of spots shown from distance      from inside the tour bus, due to which, the whole trip became worthless exercise. World famous London Eye & Changing of guards was not shown in London. Even in Paris, complainant and his wife were not taken to visit Eiffel Tower in evening, which is main attraction of the tour because its lighting to be witnessed in the evening. No illumination tour taken as per the schedule of itineracy. In Venice, complainant and his wife were not allowed to witness Glass Blowing Act and Gandola Ride. Even itineracy designed in most elusive manner, so as to cheat the tourist. Much of the time of tour was wasted in travel because there was no planning done by OP for tour. On 17.10.2015, though it was in the knowledge of OP that Eurotunnel Passage (which is a rail tunnel linking Folkestone, Kent, in the United Kingdom, with Coquelles, Pas-de-Calais, near Calais in northern France, beneath the English Channel) is not functional, due to temporary closure, but despite that complainant and his wife along with other group to this Eurotunnel taken, resulting in wastage of time. Complainant and his wife were used to get ready by 6:00 AM every day because hotel arranged were out of the main town. In view of arrangement of hotel out of the main town, places of interest were located quite far away and most of time used in wasting of time in travel. Bus used for traveling of the group was having uncomfortable seats resulting in back ache and other problems to wife of complainant. Trip to Lucerne was preponed for showing the famous lion monument. The same was also shown in the dark. Sites of Kapellbrucke and Ornate Jesuit Chruch were not shown despite the promise made in that respect. On 22.10.2015, complainant and his wife reached Austria, when darkness had already prevailed and that is why places of public interest stood already  closed. All this happened,            due to mis-management of OP. Complainant was made to check in at hotel and sleep on that day, even for Italy, Rome, Vatican City and PISA, no sufficient time was given for exploring and creating memories. On 26.10.2015, the day for sight seen was wasted because the tour manager did not turn up, so complainant had to leave for airport because six hours drive from the hotel were required. The food that was arranged by OP at various locations was hopeless and tasteless and was nowhere near to a homely meal. So complainant happened to have problem related to stomach on account of served bad quality of food. Dreams of long memories turned into fiasco because of suffering and humiliation given by Op by rendering deficient services even during time of recreational and exploring period spared by the complainant and his wife. After return back, complainant sent letters on 21.11.2015 and 27.11.2015 for disclosing about the details of horrible experience and thereafter, one of the representative visited complainant on 2.12.2015. Conversation of that representative is recorded in the CD and extract of that conversation attached with the complaint. Thereafter, a meeting with Mr.Roosebeck, Vice President of OP was arranged and he admitted the negligence of company. It is claimed that OP company is liable to refund the amount of Rs.3,84,669/- with interest @24% per annum from the date of booking till payment because they indulged in unfair trade practice by promising the creational and exploring services, but denying them actually during tour to foreign country. Tour was booked with OP at Ludhiana and payment made at Ludhiana and even tour started from Ludhiana and as such this Forum alleged to be having jurisdiction.

2.                In written reply submitted by Op, it is claimed that complaint is barred in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 because of existence of arbitration clause in the standard terms and conditions of the tour availed by the complainant and his wife. Registered office of OP situate within the territorial jurisdiction of forum in South Mumbai and business is carried by OP firm therefrom. All the travel arrangements are contracted and monitored from South Mumbai and as such, Forum at South Mumbai has exclusive jurisdiction to try the complaint in view of specific terms and conditions contained in the agreement. As per this clause, in the event of dispute arising out of or relating to the contract, party first to seek settlement through mediation on appointment of Mediator by OP. Further those terms provides that in case, settlement through mediation does not take place, then the dispute to be settled in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on appointment of sole Arbitrator by Op company. These arbitration proceedings to be held in Mumbai. Decision of Arbitrator is final and binding on the parties. Further, as per terms and conditions, any dispute concerning the award can be entertained and adjudicated by Courts in Mumbai alone. In view of confinement of jurisdiction at Courts in Mumbai, this Forum alleged to be having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. No cause of action wholly or in part has accrued in favour of complainant and even complainant has not produced any iota of evidence showing negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Rather, this frivolous and vexatious complaint alleged to be filed mischievously. Complaint contains allegations based on figment of imaginations. Suppression of material facts also alleged by claiming that complainant and his wife thoroughly enjoyed the tour and allied services, due to which, they posted their tour pictures on their social networking profile i.e. Facebook profile and from these photographs, it is made out that complainant and his wife  enjoyed the tour, but this complaint has been filed subsequently on false and frivolous allegations. Op has placed on record the screen shots of some of pictures clicked during tour and posted by complainant on his Facebook profile. Complaint alleged to be filed for extorting money from OP company having immense reputation, both in the domestic and international market. Basis for claiming compensation even not disclosed because absurd, false and mis-leading allegations are levelled. Complicated question of facts raised by complainant cannot be decided in these summary proceedings and as such, complaint deserves to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Civil Court. The booking rule of tour were accepted and agreed by the complainant. Copy of tour brochure, price grid containing booking form were supplied to the complainant and complainant availed the tour after reading and understanding the terms and conditions. Copy of standard booking form and terms and conditions along with booking rules alleged to be annexed with reply. It is denied that complainant availed any honeymoon tour. Rather, complainant availed a standard group tour of OP known as “European Whirl” for two passengers for period from 15.10.2015 to 27.10.2015. Complainant chose the above named tour package by keeping in view the budgetary limitation. All agreed services were thoroughly and meticulously provided to the complainant and his wife throughout the tour. No commitment over and above the agreed itineracy was made by Store Manager Ms.Deepti Bajaj at the time of booking. Pare Asterix was not part of the itinerary inclusions. Admittedly, complainant along with whole of the group was taken to Lovure Museum on the mentioned date of the tour. Allegations projected through emails dated 19.10.2015 and 29.09.2015 are alleged to be wrong, due to which, OP disputed the authenticity of these emails. CD is not supported by proper certification as per Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Op never committed or promised to provide the bell boy services to the complainant because the same is provided by the hotels worldwide on chargeable basis. In case, complainant was to avail services of bell boy/porters, then they should have paid the applicable charges for availing those services. All agreed places as per agreed tour itineracy were duly covered and shown to whole group including the complainant and his wife on tour. No excursion was missed and the day schedule used to be completed as per tour itineracy programme. Though, London Eye was not the part of tour, but the same was shown to the group. Photos shots were taken on London Bridge and on the riverside bank opposite the tower of London during the city tour. In the itineracy schedule, it is mentioned that London tour was a guided panoramic highlight city tour, where all the places of sightseeing are shown to the passengers from the moving bus. Even at some places, photo shots were taken. Op never promised complainant to take him inside these places. It is denied that Op or its tour manager was aware about problem regarding Eurotunnel passage or its temporary closure. However, on reaching Eurotunnel, Tour Manager realized that due to some technical difficulties, the trains were not running in time. Such incidences are beyond the control of OP and as such, complainant cannot hold OP responsible for the same. It is denied that hotels were arranged out    of town and majority of time was also used to be wasted in travelling. Other allegations regarding unconfirmed seats in the bus denied. After having consent of entire group including complainant and his wife, preponing of the visit to Lucerne was arranged. Kepellbrucke Bridge and Ornate Jesuit Chruch was shown to the entire group. Lion monument well lit up in the evening even was shown and many guests appreciated on seeing that monument. Allegations of mismanagement of tour at Austria even denied along with other allegations of alleged deficiency in Italy, Rome, Vatican City and Pisa. Allegations regarding wasting of time on 26.10.2015 due to non-availability of tour manager even denied. Deficiency on the part of OP not admitted and CD filed by the complainant is alleged to be forged and fabricated one. No person with name of Mr.Roosebeck is working in the Op company. Each and every other allegation of complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

3.               Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB of complainant and his wife along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and even affidavit Ex.CC of Sh.Subhash Sharma tendered and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Ashish Gupta, authorized signatory of Op along with documents Ex.OPW1/A to Ex.OPW1/E and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed by counsel for both the parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.           Undisputedly, European Whirl Tour package for 12 days and 11 nights for period from 15.10.2015 to 26.10.2015 was availed by the complainant on payment of Rs.3,84,669/-. Grievance of complainant remains that certain sites were not shown to him, despite promise and services rendered in the hotels of meal or of bell boy etc., were deficient. Rather, it is claimed that the assured/promised services were not provided in foreign country resulting in lot of inconvenience, harassment and even health problems to the complainant and his wife. It is also contended that tour package was availed by the complainant and his wife for honeymoon trip, but due services of that trip not provided. Though, factum of provided services is different, but the honeymoon tour package facility never availed by the complainant. Document Ex.OPW1/D signed by the complainant Ankit Gupta and as sent to The Visa Officer, British High Commission, New Delhi itself reflects that complainant was to avail the services of OP for travel to European country for tourism purpose. In this letter Ex.OPW1/D itself, it is mentioned that complainant along with his wife will visit      his cousin brother Mr.Gobind Gaurav Bansal for 10 days at the address        mentioned in the letter. In the end, assurance was given again that sole purpose of visit is tourism and travelling will be as per group of itineracy of OP company. It is mentioned in the last lines of this letter that complainant and his wife will be coming back with the group only. So, contents of this letter enough to establish that complainant since from beginning claimed as if they are not visiting for honeymoon trip, but they are visiting solely for the purpose of tourism in a group, programme of which, chalked out by OP company. Therefore, certainly a false plea has been taken that complainant and his wife availed services of OP for future memories of married life on an honeymoon trip. Before adverting to the other pointed out deficiencies, legal position needs be discussed first for finding as to whether this Forum has jurisdiction or not.

7.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that rules of booking, of payment and schedule of itinerary specifically mentioned in agreement Ex.OPW1/C and as such, complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of this agreement. One of the conditions of this agreement is that in the event of a dispute arising out of the terms and conditions, the matter liable to be referred to the mediator, but in the event of failure of mediation, the dispute liable to be referred to sole arbitrator, whose decision will be final and binding and as such, it is contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction.

8.                In case titled as DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. 2013(3) C.P.J. 439(N.C.), it has been held that even if there may be valid arbitration clause in the agreement providing for referring the matter to arbitrator or mediator, despite that remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is a special remedy with objective of redressal of grievances of affected consumers in an expeditious and non expensive manner and as such, in view of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Fora is not bound to refer the dispute raised in the complaint on an application filed under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1996. It is so because the remedy available under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy available with consumer. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and another-2012(1)RCR(Civil)-838 and Rosedale Developers Private Limited vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others-2015(1)WBLR-385 has specifically held that in view of availability of an alternative remedy by way of arbitration, jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is not barred just on account of proposition that provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act are mandatory. The Consumer Forum is not bound to make a reference to the Arbitral Tribunal. It is so because remedy of arbitration available to the complainant does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and even they are not obliged to refer the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. Latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in these two cases to prevail over the law laid down in earlier cases and as such, also this Forum not obliged or bound to refer the dispute qua deficiency in service to Arbitral Tribunal. Catena of other cited cases also leans in favour of holding that consumer complaints in relation to deficiency of service liable to be entertained and tried by Consumer Fora, even if there may be arbitration clause in the agreement for referring the matter to arbitrator because the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the one provided by any other law in force for the time being. Reference to cases titled as Lt.Col.Anil Raj and another vs. Unitech Limited-2016(2)CPR-840(N.C.); Bhupendra Kumar Sharma vs. M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and others-2015(4)CLT-204(Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh); Ramanjit Kaur Batth and others vs. The Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. and others-2015(4)CLT-116(Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh); Ram Nath vs. Improvement Trust, Bathinda-1994(1)CPC-536(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) and Arvinder Kaur vs. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana-1999(1)CPC-437(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) can specifically be made in this respect.

9.                It is also contended by counsel for OP that in view of terms and conditions contained in Ex.OPW1/C, jurisdiction is exclusively of South Mumbai Courts. However, contents of Ex.OPW1/C shows that space for signature of client and of staff exist on almost each and every page, but signature of none of them obtained. In absence of signature of complainant or of authorized representative of OP on any page of Ex.OPW1/C, it has to be held that terms and conditions contained therein are not binding on the parties. Being so exclusionary clause of jurisdiction not attracted to the facts of the present case, more so when the payment remitted from Ludhiana and even the tour package purchased at Ludhiana. In view of payment made at Ludhiana and tour package purchased at Ludhiana, this Forum certainly has jurisdiction.

10.              It is also contended by counsel for OP that in view of intricate question of law and facts involved, the matter should be got decided from Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance for the purpose is placed on case decided on 30.8.2016 bearing CC No.595 of 2015 titled as Ajay Goel vs. Manager, Corp.Office, Cox and Kings India Limited by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh. Certainly as and when complicated question of law and facts are involved, then matter liable to be got decided from Civil Court. However, when such intricacy not involved, then certainly this Forum can decide the case on merits by taking into consideration the material produced on record.

11.              Few of deficiencies pointed out in fact exists because feedback form produced on record as Ex.OPW1/E by OP itself shows that Ashima Sharma also called upon Op to improve their tour services. This feedback through Ex.OPW1/E though provides that tour services were satisfactory, but some of them marked as poor also. In the columns of efficiency, holiday information, reservation and ticketing services, it is mentioned as if services are poor. Even the meals provided mentioned as poor in this feedback Form Ex.OPW1/E produced by OP itself. So, the poor services referred in the above fields are projected through Ex.OPW1/E by a fellow, who is not a party of this litigation. That aspect of the matter will be taken into consideration in corroboration of alleged found deficiencies.

12.              One of the deficiency pointed out is that bell boy service is not provided in the hotels, but that deficiency in fact do not exist because after going through itinerary detail contained in Ex.C1, it is made out that though provision for stay in hotel or of providing lunch/dinner in Indian restaurant is made, but no provision incorporated therein regarding providing of bell boy service. So, claim in this respect is stacked against services, which are not assured. Claim of complainant in this respect as such not sustainable.

13.              Second deficiency pointed out is that visit to Parc Asterix was not got made, despite assurance. Controversy in this respect raised by contending that visit to this place was not in the itineracy detail. Email Ex.C4 sent by the complainant to OP shows as if claim was stacked regarding visit to this Parc Asterix place in Paris. In replied email Ex.C5, it is further mentioned as if this Parc Asterix visit was used to be provided at the time of booking, but it was not included in the schedule of tour guide. Even after going through contents of Ex.C1, it is not at all made out that visit to this place was in the programme schedule. So, this pointed out deficiency even does not exist.

14.              Another contentious issue is that for wasting time of complainant, visit to Eurotunnel passage was arranged, despite the fact that those tunnels were temporarily closed on the day of visit. However, it is the case of OP that tour manager was not aware of temporary closure of that Eurotunnel passage and that is why, the visit did not remain fruitful. As tour and travel package provided by OP to the complainant and as such it was their duty to ensure that site included in the visit schedule is enjoyed by the persons paying for the same. Had that precaution been observed by the tour manager, then certainly instead of taking complainant and his wife to Eurotunnel passage on the day it was temporarily closed, they would have made arrangement for utilizing their time somewhere else for exploring and creational activities. That is not done and as such deficiency in service on the part of Op to this extent certainly exists.

15.              Another deficiency claimed is of non-visit to Eiffel Tower, despite inclusion in the programme schedule. Visit to Eiffel Tower for having dazzling overview of the glittering city have been mentioned at page 2 of Ex.C1. However, it is claimed that said visit was not during night, but that fact is denied by Op. Such controversial fact can be adjudicated on production of due evidence of others and that evidence in the shape of affidavit Ex.CC of Sh.Subhash Sharma is produced. This Subhash Sharma claims that passengers of European Whirl-Winter package joined him in Paris. After going through page no.2 of this affidavit Ex.CC, it is made out that visit to Eiffel Tower was not arranged during evening. So, this part of omission on the part of OP is there, due to which, complainant could not enjoy illumination seen of Eiffel Tower.

16.              If complainant and his wife had to get ready by 6:00 AM on every day, then due to that alone, fault to OP cannot be attributed because whosoever goes for touring in package, he has to follow the schedule timing. As through Ex.C1, foods of Indian restaurant were assured to be provided to the complainant and as such, it is obvious that virtually Op was to choose that hotel, where Indian food becomes available. There is nothing in Ex.C1 to show that hotel inside the city only to be arranged in the touring itineracy. So, deficiency in service in this respect does not exist.

17.              Next deficiency pointed out is that bus through which complainant and his companion was made to travel was having uncomfortable seats. How these seats were uncomfortable qua that vague allegations are  levelled because only on disclosure of unconformitibility of seats, it could have been proved as to whether actually seats were uncomfortable or not.

18.              It is also claimed that trip to famous Lion monument was arranged in dark and sites of Kapellbrucke and Ornate Jesuit Church were not shown. Mention of this omission is found in affidavit Ex.CC. It is the case of OP that preponing of visit to Lucerne took place due to consent given by the complainant and other fellow to ring member of the group. That controversial question cannot be determined in these proceedings, more so when the same does not get corroboration from the contents of affidavit Ex.CC. In affidavit Ex.CC, no mention at all made regarding these spots. As these spots were to be shown from inside the bus and as such, complainant may have not taken note of these sites.

19.              It is also claimed that due to mis-management of OP, complainant and his wife reached Austria on 22.10.2015, when the darkness had fallen and that is why, places of public interest could not be seen. The names of places of public interest, which were left out on 22.10.2015, not mentioned in the                   complaint and as such allegations in this respect remains vague. Besides, it is not mentioned as to from which destination complainant and his companion started for reaching Austria during dark hours on 22.10.2015. Only on disclosure of time essential for such undertaken journey, it could have been found as to whether it was an act of mis-management of OP or it was on account of sheer consumption of more time for journey from starting place to Austria. Even vague and general allegations levelled regarding non-providing of sufficient time to complainant and his wife for exploring in Italy, Rome, Vatican City and Pisa because mention not made as to where the time wasted for journey from hotel or one city to another. If allegations regarding travelling from hotel or one city to another taken into consideration, then this means that actually complainant and his companion taken from one city to another and as such, same shows as if due services provided in this respect for taking complainant from one city to another.

20.              Sight seeing on 26.10.2015 could not take place due to non presence of tour manager is other pointed out deficiency, but that fact denied by OP specifically. Such fact can be ascertained only on adduction of proof through elaborate evidence and as such, this controversial question cannot be gone into in the proceedings of this complaint.

21.              It is also claimed that food provided was tasteless because it was nowhere near to homely meal. It is not mentioned anywhere in Ex.C1 that homely meal to be provided to the complainant and his wife. Rather, as already referred above through Ex.C1, it was pointed out as if lunch or dinner in Indian restaurant to be provided. There is nothing in Ex.C1 to mention that food in Indian restaurant will be having taste of home meal. So, exaggeration in this respect is projected and said deficiency as such virtually cannot be said to be in service.

22.              Certainly visit to Tower of London was contemplated through Ex.C1. It is claimed that while in London, World Famous London Eye & Changing of Guards were not shown to the complainant and his wife. That submission of complainant absolutely is false because complainant through Facebook profile placed on        record as Ex.OPW1/B(numbering two) projected that he along with his wife Dr.Shelka Gupta were there at Tower of London on 15.10.2015. In view of this facebook profile projected by the complainant himself, plea taken by complainant regarding non-showing of London Eye site absolutely is incorrect.

23.              It is also claimed that Glass Blowing Act and Gandola Ride were not shown to the complainant, but due material in that respect is not produced and as such, this deficiency in service is not established.

24.              It is contended by counsel for OP that conversion of text in CD as produced Ex.C7 and Ex.C9 along with CD Ex.C6 itself are forged documents. Forgery of documents cannot be gone into in these proceedings of summary  nature because as and when question of fraud is involved, then the same cannot be gone into in the summary proceedings, but the same has to be got decided from Civil Court or Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance for the purpose can be placed on law laid down in case titled as P.N.Khanna vs. Bank of India-II(2015)CPJ-54(N.C.); Bright Transport Company vs. Sangli Sehkari Bank Ltd.,II(2012)CPJ-151(N.C.); Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mani Mahesh Patel-VI(2006)SLT-436=2006(2)CPC-668(S.C.); Reliance Industries Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited-I(1998)CPJ-13(N.C.); M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Limited vs. United Commercial Bank-III(1992)CPJ-50(N.C.); Sangli Ram vs. General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited-II(1994)CPJ-444; Harbans and company vs. State Bank of India-II(1994)CPJ-456; Ranju Devi vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India-2015(4)CLT-131(JHK). So, contents of these CD cannot be taken note of, more so when OP themselves have claimed that Mr.Roosebeck, with whom, the complainant claims to have conversation as Vice President, in fact is not their employee. That controversial question also need elaborate evidence and as such the same cannot be decided through proceedings of this complaint. From the above pointed entire discussion, it is made out that some deficiencies of course were there in the arrangements, but those deficiencies are not of such magnitude as to make the complainant entitled for refund of entire paid amount of Rs.3,84,669/- because complainant after enjoying the tour package facilities cannot seek refund. In case, the refund of entire package fee ordered, then it will amount to unjust enrichment of complainant, particularly when he along with his wife availed facilities of getting tickets for travelling through airlines, stayed in hotels, availed meals and even toured through the provided buses by OP. For the above referred 3-4 deficiencies, compensation for mental agony and harassment due to loss of time for exploring or recreation alone is warranted.

25.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to Op to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) for the few deficiencies in provided services. Litigation expenses of amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Op. Payment of these compensation and litigation amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on these amounts from today onwards till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

26.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Vinod Gulati)                                         (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:04.12.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.