Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal filed by the complainant herself whose complaint was partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune by delivering judgement on 19/5/2009 in consumer  complaint no.98/2008. 

Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

Complainant and her husband wanted to go to Singapore for site seeing.  They had, therefore, approached Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. at Pune.  A Singapore trip from 06/3/2008 to 11/3/2008 was arranged by the opposite party.  The complainant was asked to pay an amount of `60,802/- in Indian currency.  She had opted for a Three Star hotel accommodation at Singapore.   The package was offered inclusive of accommodation, site-seeing and economy air-ticket for the couple and to and fro transportation from airport to hotel.  Accordingly, payment of `60,802/- was made by the complainant on 29/2/2008.  Complainant pleaded that a few days prior to the scheduled departure, one of the representatives of opposite party had approached her and she was informed that the Three Star hotel accommodation was not available and that the complainant and her husband would be accommodated only in a Two Star hotel at Singapore.  Complainant pleaded that she had no option, but to accept the offer. Accordingly, she and her husband stayed in a Two Star hotel instead of Three Star hotel from the night of 06/3/2008 till 10/3/2008.

The complainant pleaded that she was entitled to claim refund of difference between Two Star hotel accommodation and Three Star hotel accommodation.  She admit payment of Singapore $494/-.  She also made payment of Singapore $264/- and she was charged much more than the actual expenditure incurred by the O.Ps.  According to her, at the relevant time, the exchange rate was `29.25ps. for one Singapore dollar and she alleged that O.P. had recovered an amount of `13,113/- in excess and, therefore, O.P. was liable to refund the said amount.  She also prayed that suitable interest with refund of the said amount be awarded against the O.P.

O.P. filed written version and contested the complaint.  According to O.P. no part of cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Pune and, therefore, District Consumer Forum, Pune has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  All tours are organized from Mumbai and, therefore, the District Consumer Forum, Pune has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.  Complainant should have filed consumer complaint in Mumbai court. 

O.P. also pleaded that complainant had booked ‘FLEXIHOL’ customized holiday package of O.P. from its Pune office for going to Singapore.  Payment of `60,802/- has been admitted.  O.P. pleaded that while booking this package, complainant had signed booking form in acceptance of the said terms and conditions.  The complainant had read, understood and accepted those terms.  O.P. pleaded that after booking of the tour, O.P. had informed the complainant that Three Star hotel was totally sold out and was not available and another hotel which was Two Star hotel by name ‘CLAREMONT’ was available on the dates suitable to the complainant.  The option was given to the complainant to continue with the tour or to cancel the tour. She was also appraised of the fact that said Two Star hotel was levying a rate, which was higher than the rate shown in the price grid and the rate at which the hotel was available was Singapore $570/- per person.  One Mr.Indrajeet Pawar, representative of the opposite party, had informed these facts to the complainant.  Complainant had accepted the said offer voluntarily and continued with the planned tour.  O.P. pleaded that O.P. had provided satisfactory service to the complainant. There was no grievance of the complainant during the tour programme, particularly with regard to hotel accommodation made in Two Star hotel and, therefore, complaint is devoid of any substance and it should be dismissed with costs.

Forum below, upon hearing Ld.counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the documents and affidavits placed on record was of the view that the District Consumer Forum, Pune had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because tour was booked at Pune office of Cox & Kings (India) Pvt.Ltd.   Payment was made at Pune and, therefore, cause of action had accrued in Pune. Moreover, M/s.Cox & Kings (India) Pvt.Ltd. was having branch office at Pune, where it carries on business and, therefore, forum below was pleased to hold that complaint as filed is entertainable under section 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the District Consumer Forum, Pune.

Forum below then examined merits of the case. Forum below was of the view that grievance of the complainant that she had opted for Three Star hotel but was placed or accommodated in Two Star hotel by the O.P. is not made out by the complainant because immediately after the booking, representative of the complainant Mr.Indrajeet Pawar had contacted complainant and she was told that Three Star hotels were already sold out and accommodation in Two Star hotel was available and complainant was free to cancel the booking or she would have to get herself accommodated in Two Star hotel.  Name of hotel was also told and charges of the hotel were also informed to the complainant.  Complainant mentioned in her complaint that in the circumstances, complainant had no option but to accept the offer given by the O.P.  This is how the forum below held that there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of the O.P. in accommodating the complainant and her husband in Two Star hotel, because before the tour started, she was already informed that she would not be getting Three Star accommodation in any hotel and that only Two Star hotel was available and complainant and her husband would be allotted accommodation in Two Star hotel and complainant voluntarily accepted the said offer given by the O.P. 

In the circumstances, forum below rightly held that on this count, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Forum below also turned down complainant’s contention that she had to spend out certain amount in Singapore dollars for her accommodation in Two Star hotel. Forum below held that she was already told that she and her husband will be accommodated in Two Star hotel and the payment was already made by complainant to the O.P. inclusive of hotel accommodation. Therefore, contention of the complainant or appellant herein, that she was required to shell out certain Singapore dollars for her accommodation in Two Star hotel was held to be not reliable and forum below held that there was no question of making payment by the complainant’s husband in the facts and circumstances. 

Forum below also held that there was no grievance of the complainant in respect of her stay in Two Star hotel. It was not her grievance that she was deprived of certain site seeing spots or tourist spots. Her grievance about the stay in Two Star hotel was not amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. because appellant had been told before start of tour that she was not getting accommodation in Three Star hotel but that she was being accommodated in Two Star hotel itself and respondent had also told complainant and her husband that they were free to cancel the booking and they would refund full amount in the event of cancellation since they could not accommodate in Three Star hotel.  But complainant voluntarily accepted the said offer and voluntarily stayed in Two Star hotel.  In the circumstances, forum below rightly held that there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of M/s.Cox & Kings (India) Pvt.Ltd.-Tour operator.  They had done everything which was within their powers.  They had offered cancellation of booking to the complainant with the promise of full refund since complainant was not being accommodated in Three Star hotel while she was staying in Singapore, but she had not cancelled the booking.  She continued the tour, enjoyed the tour and then filed consumer complaint which was absolutely false and frivolous.  However, forum below allowed the claim of the complainant to the extent of `216/- and directed that said amount be paid by the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a.  However, Mr.Prabhawalkar while arguing his case, fairly conceded that said amount should have been `261/- and, there was calculation mistake on the part of the District Consumer Forum and, therefore, he fairly conceded that `261/- is refundable to the complainant.  He suggested that instead of `261/-, State Commission may direct respondent to pay lump sum amount of `300/- to the complainant to cover up the mistake committed by District Consumer Forum in calculation.  In the circumstances, we are inclined to pass the following order:-

                                                          ORDER

Appeal stands summarily rejected.

However, we direct that respondent shall pay a sum of `300/- to the complainant in place of `216/- with interest @ 9% p.a. within one month from receipt of this order.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.