Haryana

Panchkula

CC/575/2019

ADARSH JAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

COX & KINGS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

18 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	575of 2019
Date of Institution	:	15.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.03.2021

 

AdarshJain, aged 65 years, S/o Sh. O.P.Jain, R/o 306, Shakti Apartments, Sector-14, Panchkula-134109

                                                                                       ….Complainant

                                    Versus

Cox & Kings Ltd.

Corporate Office:       Turner Morrison Building,16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001.mail:customerservice@coxandkings.com

Local Branch Office:   SCF-129, First Floor, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana-134109Email: som.nath@coxandkings.com

                                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. SushmaGarg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Complainant in person.

OPs No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 04.12.2019.

                          

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant had approached the OPs and upon their representations, had agreed to book its services in respect of a 5 nights/6 days from 15.06.2019 to 20.06.2019. In respect of the same, the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs.2,76,338/- as per demands raised by the OPs.  The booking and aforesaid payments were made subject to and relying on the representations made by the OPs regarding specific itinerary which was represented to and promised to the complainant at the time of booking i.e. on 29^th April, 2019 and which was specifically agreed to between the complainant and OPs. According to the said itinerary, on the first day of the itinerary(15.06.2019), the complainant alongwith his family, were to travel from Delhi to Bagdogra by air and then from Bagdogra to Kalimpong via road(a journey of 3 hours). On the second day(16.06.2019), after adequate rest and sightseeing, the complainant  and his family  was to travel ahead  to Gangtok by road. Furthermore, it was agreed that for the entire journey, an Air-Conditioned Toyota Innova vehicle alongwith driver would be provided for the use of them.  However, on 11.06.2019, the OPs sent confirmation with revised itinerary to the complainant unilaterally informing change in the itinerary, and asking the complainant to travel directly from Bagdogra Airport to Gangtok directly by road i.e. a journey of 6 hours. The complainant had immediately called to OPs and objected to such unilateral change in the agreed itinerary and informed to the OPs that the unilaterally revised itinerary was very strenuous for the complainant and his family members. The said journey had proved to be very arduous and strenuous so much so that the complainant grand-daughter aged 8 years old had fallen sick due to such unilateral change long strenuous travel. The OPs had been projected Rs.2,500/- per person was chargeable for the issuance of inner permit for entry into Gangtok for such persons. However, they were surprised to know, upon reaching inquiring from the Sikkim Government officials, they had been informed that no such charges are leviable, and inner line permit is issued to foreigners without any cost. The complainant had to stand in line himself to obtain the permit, at the late evening hours on special request to the officials there, as no prior arrangement had been made by the OPs.  At the time of booking, it was specifically informed that the driver of the vehicle would be the tour guide but on 16.06.2019 while travelling from Gangtok to Tshangu Lake, an extra person Mr. Nishan accompanied the complainant and his family as a “tour guide” in the hired vehicle. On the second day, i.e. 16.06.2019, the complainant and his family were ready and to leave at 08:00 am. However, the vehicle did not arrive till 09:30 A.M. Resultantly, the complainant and his family were stuck for hours in huge traffic jams. To make matters even worse, the vehicle which had arrived was dirty and stinking, evidently not having been cleaned for many days. Further, as per the representations made by the OPs, one water bottle per person was to be provided in the taxi, for which the complainant had duly made payment as per agreed terms.Further,the driver of the said taxi/vehicle, one Mr.K.B.Chettri(vehicle no.SK-01-Z-0135) who drove the vehicle to Tshangu Lake was highly discourteous, rude and he misbehaved.Further, while enroute, the said driver refused to stop at any restaurants/dhabas for food and arbitrarily stopped the taxi/vehicle at a place of his choice. As per the itinerary and verbal confirmation received from the OP’s representative, the complainant with his family members were assured that they would be taken to Baba Harbhajan Singh memorial after visit to Lake Tshangu. However, the driver refused to take the complainant to the said memorial. At last, on return to Gangtok when the complainant asked the driver to at least take them to the local market but the said driver refused to even take them to the market and took them straight to the hotel and left. The complainant had on return from the trip, sent a letter dated 26.06.2019 to the OPs regarding the various deficiencies etc. to which the OP had responded vide e-mail dated 29/30.07.2019, wherein the OPs have, in due acknowledgment of deficiency of services on their part, admitted and instead of issuing requisite refund of amounts spent by the complainant offered some discount coupons valuing meager Rs.3,000/- per person which can only be used only on the OP’s other tour packages. The complainant had issued a legal notice upon OP on 29.08.2019 but all in vain. Thus, this act and conduct of the OPsamounts to deficiency in service unfair trade practice on his part; hence, the present complaint.

2.               Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 & 2through registered post (vide registered post No.CH025499777IN and CH025499750IN) on 23.10.2019 to OPs, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops, they wereproceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated04.12.2019.

3.               The complainant has tendered affidavit as AnnexureC-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                  During the course of arguments, the complainant tendered the photocopy of instructions for Inner Line Permit(ILP or RAP) which we take on record as Mark ‘A’  for adjudication of the case in a fair and proper manner.

4.               We have heard the complainantand gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

5.               It is evident that the complainant accompanied by his five other family members i.e. son, daughter, wife, son-in-laws and grand-daughter,on the basis of payments amounting to Rs.2,76,338/- details of which find mention in Para No. 5sub Clause iii of the Affidavit(Annexure C-A),availed the services of the OPs, who is engaged in providing servicesrelating to tour packages and travel arrangement. The complainant and his family members allegedly suffered great discomfort and inconvenience during their tour to Sikkim.The grievances against the OP as alleged in the complaint may be summarized as under:-

i.       That the OPs changed the terms and conditions of the itinerary planning (Annexure C-2) unilaterally, thereby compelling thecomplainant and his family members to undergo the non-stop journey of 6 hours from Bagdogra to Gangtok. The said journey of 6 hours proved to be very arduous and strenuous, so much so that the complainant’s grand-daughter aged 8 years oldhad fallen sick due to suchunilateral change and long strenuous travel.

ii.      That the OPs were not authorized to levy charges amounting to Rs.2,500/- per person under the head of inner line permit (ILP) or restricted area permit(RAP) as the same was available free of cost as is evident from Mark ‘A’. It is alleged that the OPs have illegally collected Rs.7,500/-from the complainant for said inner line permit i.e. for an entry into Gangtok for NRIs.

iii.     That the complainant as well as his family members on 16.06.2019 were made to travel from Gangtok to Tshangu Lake with an  extra person, namely, Mr. Nishan as a tour guide in contravention of the agreed terms and conditions wherein it was promised that driver of the vehicle would work as tour guide.

iv.     That the driver of the vehicle used to arrive at 08.00A.M. at the promised time but he came at 09.30A.M.as a result of which, the complainant and his family members got stuck for 4 hours in heavy traffic jam. Further, it is alleged that the vehicle was very dirty and stinking, evidently not cleaned for many days.

v.      That the OPs have utterly failed to provide one bottle of water per person as promised.

vi.     That Sh.K.B.Chettri, driver of vehicle no.SK-01-Z-0135 was highly discourteous and rude and he misbehaved with the complainant and his family members. The said driver while en route from Gangtok to Tshangu Lake did not stop the said car at any restaurants/dhabas for food; rather he  stopped the vehicle at a place of his choice which was extremely dirty and below standard, thereby compelled the complainant and his family members to skip the lunch altogether.

vii.    That the complainant and his family member were denied the visit to Baba Harbhajan Singh memorial in utter violation of the terms and conditions as promised by the OPs vide revised itinerary planning dated 12.06.2019.

6.               The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.               On the other, the complainant has substantiated his version and proved the case by placing on record the documentary evidence in the shape of his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11. The OPsvide e-mail correspondence dated 29.07.2019 has regretted for the inconvenience and hardships faced by the complainant and his family members and offered a gift voucher worth Rs.3,000/- per person. The said offer of gift voucher worth Rs.3,000/- per person has been rejected by the complainant and thereafter, sent a legal notice (Annexure C-10) asking the OPs to make a payment of sum of Rs.2,97,113/-on account of several deficiencies as mentioned in Para no.21 of the legal notice(Annexure C-10). The OPsresponded to said legal notice vide reply(Annexure C-11) stating that the matter is being inquired and relevant information and documents are being collected from concerned department.

8.               In view of the fact that the OPs have neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OPswhile delivering the services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.               In the present complaint, the following reliefs have been claimed:-

         a)      Refund Rs.89,613/- for the cost of first two days(1/3^rd of

                  total cost excluding ILP charges).

         In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above in above parasof this order, we deem it fair and reasonable to allow the refund of Rs.89,613/- as claimed.

         b)      Refund of Rs.7,500/- for inner line permit charges.

         In view of the fact that Inner Line Permit was issued free of cost as mentioned in Mark ‘A’, the claim for the refund of Rs.7,500/- for inner line permit charges is allowed.

         c)      Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical harassment and

                  mental agony to senior citizens, ladies and child

 

         In our opinion compensation of Rs.10,000/-on account physical harassment and mental agony is reasonable and fair.

 

10.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

                  i.       To refund a sum of Rs.89,613/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.

                  ii.      To refund of Rs.7,500/- for inner line permit charges to the complainant.

                  iii.     To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.

                  iv.     To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation charges.

11.             The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPsfailing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 18.03.2021

 

         Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                             President