Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/184/2012

Nagamanickam Balaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.Dhanalakshmi

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  19.07.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :  21.10.2016

 

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. 184 /2012 & 185 /2012

FRIDAY THIS  21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

CC. 184 / 2012

 

Mr. Nagamanickam Balaji,

S/o. Nagamanickam Chettiar,

275, Sewapettai Main Road,

Salem 636 002.                                             .. Complainant.

                                   ..Vs..

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

Rep. by the  The Managing Director,

Grindlays Bank Building,

270/272, Dr.D.N.Road,

Mumbai 400 001.

 

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

Rep. by the Branch Manager,

No.11, Rangam Ceebros,

Senatoph Road,  Teynampet,

Chennai 600 018.                                                          ..Opposite parties   

 

CC. 185 / 2012

Mr. Ethirajulu Sairam,

52, Ammapet Main Road,

Salem 636 001.                                                     .. Complainant.

                                   ..Vs..

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

Rep. by the  The Managing Director,

Grindlays Bank Building,

270/272, Dr.D.N.Road,

Mumbai 400 001.

 

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

Rep. by the Branch Manager,

No.11, Rangam Ceebros,

Senatoph Road,  Teynampet,

Chennai 600 018.                                                        ..Opposite parties 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi    

For the opposite parties              :   M/s. Motilal  Goda  & another

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of Panasonic camera etc. and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.   

COMMON  ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II     

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

            The  complainant submit that  the complainant and his family members had to board the flight at Chennai and tickets were booked as per the scheduled.   The tickets were booked at Ex. Chennai, but the tickets were issued Ex. Bombay and the complainant and his family members had burdened to pay a flight fare from Chennai to Bombay at Rs.4,087/- each for four persons (Rs.4087 x 4 ) and Rs.2,044/- for the child and the tickets were purchased from Indian Airlines and the tickets were not issued.   The complainant further submit that from Bombay to London Heathrow Airport tickets were not confirmed and the complainant had to incur an expenditure of Rs.5,000/- and there was a delay of four hours in the hotel accommodation at London.   The complainant also state that the opposite party-2 assured that all intimations had been passed on and the complainant and his family members would be provided pure vegetarian food throughout the tour programme.  Even as per the itinerary it was assured but no food was provided in the “Euro star” and after landing in Paris immediately they were taken for sightseeing, without food and after sightseeing cheap food was provided after two hours and the complainant and his family members had to leave the baggage in the coach itself.    The tour was conducted in an inadequate manner at Paris and the complainant Panasonic camera was stolen valued Rs.30,000/-.   As per Itinerary “Euro Disney” in Paris was scheduled for one day and the opposite party-2 collected 85 US $ per persons and for child 75 US $ and  but only 3 hours in Euro Disney were spent without proper guidance.    For Gallova evening the opposite party-2 had collected 65 us $ per person and for the child they had collected 50 us $, but they were not taken to the place as promised and the opposite parties are bound to refund the said amount.    The complainant contended that while returning from Sharjah return tickets were not confirmed and the complainant and his wife had to come to Bombay and they travelled from Bombay to Landon and they had paid Rs.78410/- per person in total, paid Rs.14,820/- by taking tickets from Jet Airways.   The complainant and his family members were not able to enjoy the tour and put to lot of inconvenience.   As such, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  The complainant sought for  a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of Panasonic camera etc. and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.    Hence the complaint.

Written version of opposite parties  are  briefly as follows:-

2.     The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that the complainant booked with the opposite party in the “Passionate Europe Tour” departing on 11.5.2000 for himself and four others, after reading and understanding the terms and conditions the “Booking Conditions” the “Tour Brochure”  the “Free Holiday Form” and the Tour  Price List.    The opposite parties further submit that  the said “terms and conditions clearly stipulate under the heading “Law and Jurisdiction as “ The contract between the company and the client and every matter arising from,  it shall  be governed by and construed in accordance with Indian Laws and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts, Forums and Tribunals of Mumbai.    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, were supplied by the carriers.  They were 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 was no guarantee that departures would take place of the time shown either in their Brochure or in tickets.    All the baggage and personal effects were at all times and in all circumstances the responsibility of the client.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.    The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for,  in the complaint and  therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were  marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 were marked on the side of the  opposite parties. 

4.      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?.

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13  marked on the side of the complainant, written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1  to Ex.B17  marked on the side of the opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.  

6.        The complainant booked a tour coined in the name of “Passionate   Europe Tour” with the opposite party  and booked the tickets, to be executed on 5.5.2000  through Arhand worldwide travel agency,  comprising of Mr.Balaji Mrs. Sai ram, Miss. Charumathi, Satyavathi, Manjula  Who were about to leave at Chennai to Landon on 4.5.2000.  The opposite parties as per the schedule already booked the tickets Ex-Bombay to Landon.  At the insistence of the complainant the opposite parties tried to accommodate and reschedule the trip of the complainant on 4.5.2000.   Somehow the opposite party could not get the ticket, from Ex. Madras  he booked the tickets from Ex-Bombay to Landon.  But  the complainant at their own risk left Chennai on 3.5.2000 but as per the schedule the original tour which had to be executed on  10.5.2000 by the opposite parties but the complainant had pre-poned the tour on 4.5.2000 and at his own interest he shifted his tour to Sharjah and some of the inconvenience caused during this trip the opposite parties were not held responsible.

7.     The allegations raised by the complainant that due to the non booking of the flight from Chennai to Bombay and then from Bombay to London he had experienced some financial loss where he had estimated an amount of Rs.4,087 per person and Rs.2,044/- for a child he had to shall out as air ticket and he also stated an additional amount of Rs.5,000/-also incurred at Bombay airport.   The next allegation during the tour was the food arrangements were not upto their mark and cheap food was provided, to them where they are pure vegetarians which could not be relished by them.    In some places they could not get proper accommodate and they had lost a Panasonic camera value Rs.30,000/- left in the bus at Paris and some video caste and photographs taken by them.   The complainant itinerary  that they have in forced to pay 85 Us $ per person and 75 US $ for a child and paid Rs.50 franks for baggage’s for the Gallova evening.   It is contended that the opposite party had collected 85 us $ for the adults and 50 us $ for the child and sought the refund of the above said amount.  On returning from Sharjah they further incurred an expense amount to Rs.14,820/- for the ticket from Bombay to Chennai by air.   As a whole the allegation of the complainant is a tour was not properly organized and it was very negligent hence demand a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/-  for loss of Panasonic camera and five video cassettes and photographs and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint for each cases.

8.     The opposite party contended that the allegation raised by the complainant are vexatious and frivolous the tour Passionate  Europe well organize  with proper guide and at the request of the complainant the pre-ponement of the tour to 4.5.2000 and inconvenience  arised and the financial loss incurred for the complainant the opposite parties are not at all responsible  because the actual schedule tour “Passionate Europe” on 10.5.2000.  The expenses incurred at Bombay air port to Landon to the tune of Rs.5,000/- there was no sufficient proof of service is provided by the complainant and the trip to Sharjah was only by the complainant and his family not by the other participants hence  the expenditure in this tour and return back to Bombay to Chennai was at the risk of complainant.    In no way the opposite parties were held responsible for this expense.   The allegation brought forward by the complainant that the quality of food supplied at the foreign destination were not upto their satisfaction which could not be accepted since most places in Europe  continental foods were being sold in order to satisfy the customer they have arranged caravans, supplied packed food to keep the time management and vegetarians    Otherwise the participants of the tour would miss the bus (sightseeing).   The allegation raised on the opposite parties stating excess amount collected for certain areas are not acceptable.  Where the sight seeing things were unwarranted and where particular sightseeing places were shown they were forced to cancel and rearrange the trip.    Hence opposite parties had offered a sum of Rs.21,315/- given by way of cheque was not accepted by the complainant the loss of personal belongings Panasonic camera, and five video cassettes and photographs, the opposite parties are not held responsible because it is the duty of the traveler to safeguard the personal belongs in  safe personal custody  should not left over at the bus which was stranded.   To the utmost level the opposite party had conducted the tour by properly trained guide and other than the complainant no co-travelers raised any objections in this tour. 

9.     Pursuant on the both the complaints it is found that the opposite party had offered the refund of Rs.21,315/-  which was not accepted by the complainant and at a date the complainants counsel acknowledged the receipt of the same. Since the opposite party came forward in accepting the deficiency on their part and having given the refund to the complainant it is appreciable on the part of opposite party by offering Rs.21,315/- by cheque, Rs.7,177/- by way of cheque voluntarily for to satisfy the customer.   There was no acknowledged by the complainants counsel for having received Rs.7177/- it is justifiable for paying a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for each complaint with interest @ 9% from the date of taking the complaint in this forum by valid documentary evidence and the loss of personal belongings such as Panasonic camera and five video cassettes, and photographs  it was the duty of the complainant to safe guard the personal belongings.  In no way the opposite parties are held liable for the loss.   It is justifiable to grant compensation for the places where the opposite parties had collected money and not executed the sightseeing accordingly the complainant was forced to face agony in missing the sightseeing places.  Hence it is justifiable to refund the excess amount collected accordingly the complainant counsel had collected Rs.21,135/- and endorsed with this forum.

10.    However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that among the claim made by the complainant the opposite party  having collected the extra charges for the visit of Gallova evening that has not been fulfilled by the opposite party due to unavoidable circumstances of the failure of the arranging agency consent and also have caused hardship to the complainants by not arranging proper flight from Chennai to Bombay and on the return journey from Bombay to Chennai which were caused mental agony and hardship to the four complainants who are the other members, excluding the child relating to both the Complaints i.e. 184/2012 & 185/2012.   Therefore we are of the considered view the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally to be directed  to  pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each members accordingly to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as just and reasonable compensation in each Complaint i.e. CC.184/2012 & 185/2012 and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.   Accordingly the points 1 & 2  are answered in the both the complaints i.e. CC.184/2012 & 185/2012.

CC. 184/2012   

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 19.7.2012 to till the date of payment  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainants   within six weeks from the date of this order. 

CC.185/2012

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 19.7.2012 to till the date of payment  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainants   within six weeks from the date of this order. 

               Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  21^st   day  of  October  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1 – 1.5.2000  - Copy of  confirmation voucher.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of part of the confirmation voucher.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of complaint given by the complainants to the police.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of complaint given by the tour members to the

                             opposite parties.

 

Ex.A5- 1.7.2000    - Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to  the

                              Opposite parties.

 

Ex.A6series           - Copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A7- 4.5.2000    - Copy of export certificate.

Ex.A8-         -       - Copy of detailed STD/ISD information.

Ex.A9-         -       - Copy of thirty party affidavit.

Ex.A10-       -       - Copy of intimation given by the Admiral plaza hotel.

Ex.A11-       -       - Copy of complaint given by tour members  to the opposite

                             parties.

Ex.A12- 27.5.2000         - Copy of fax message of the tour Manager.

Ex.A13- 9.3.2000  - Copy of receipt issued by Arihant Worldwide in favour of

                             complainant

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- 

 

Ex.B1 -        -       - Copy of booking given by Krishnan in respect of tour of the

                             Complainant.

 

Ex.B2-         -       - Copy of Passport.

Ex.B3-         -       - Copy of booking form in respect of complainants and their

                             Family members.

 

Ex.B4- 13.4.2000  - Copy of cash receipts Rs.50,000/- & Rs.6908/-

Ex.B5- 20.4.2000  - Copy of letter.

Ex.B6-         -       - Copy of Overseas medical claim policy form of

                             Balaji Manjula

 

Ex.B7-         -       - Copy of Overseas medical claim policy form of

                             Nagamaickam Chettiar Balaji

. 

Ex.B8-         -       - Copy of Overseas medical claim policy form of

                             Miss Sairam Charumathi.

 

Ex.B9-         -       - Copy of Overseas Medical claim policy form of

                             Mrs.Sairam Sathyavathi.

 

Ex.B10- 1.5.2000  - Copy of client confirmation voucher.

Ex.B11series-        - Copy of reply sent by the opposite parties to the

                             complainant.

Ex.B12- 30.10.2000- Copy of cheque for Rs.21315/- issued in favour of the

                              Complainant.

Ex.B13-       -       - Copy of letter of one Krishnamurthy address to the opposite

                             Party.

Ex.B14- 31.7.2000         - Copy of Cheque for Rs.7,177.50 issued in favour of one

                             Kirshnamurthy.

 

Ex.B15-       -       - Copy of Travel Agent hand book.

 

Ex.B16-       -       - Copy of booking form in respect of complainants and their

                             family members.

 

Ex.B17-       -       - Copy of booking conditions of the opposite parties.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.