DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.886/2009
Sh. Amarjit Singh Bedi
R/o F-594, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110044 ….Complainant
Versus
1. D. Paul’s Travels & Tours
(A unit of D Paul’s Consumer Benefit Ltd.)
Main branch: B-50, Shivalik,
New Delhi-110017
2. Sh. Siddharth
C/o D. Paul’s Travels & Tours
B-50, Shivalik, New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 16.12.09
Date of Order : 19.08.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in or about September, 2008 he was exploring various options to go for a honeymoon and visited the office of OP No.1 and they offered him 7 nights/8 days package for Switzerland at the cost of Rs.94,000/- per person. He enquired from the OP No.1 regarding the details about the package and assurance was given by the OP No.1 that visa for the trip would be available to him within 10 days before the marriage. He believed OP No.1 and paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards visa charges. However, one week before the wedding i.e. approx. on 03.10.09 it was informed by the OP No.1 that the visa for Switzerland will not be made available since the complainant had not made any endorsement on his passport regarding the marriage. He was shocked to hear the explanation given by the OP No.1 since it was practically impossible to get an endorsement of marriage one week before the actual date of marriage. The OP No.1 also informed that in absence of valid visa for Switzerland the cancellation charges of the ticket i.e. 50% of the fare ticket would be borne by him. He was left with no choice but compelled to take an alternative package from OP No.1 since he had already paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The only package available with OP No.1 was for New Zealand which was costing Rs.3 lacs and he was called at the office of OP No.1 where OP No.2 attended to him and assured that OP No.1 was the market leader in handling packages for New Zealand and was offering him the best deal around. According to the complainant, the following assurances were given by the OPs and he paid Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.10,000/- paid earlier for the purpose of visa processing:-
“a That OP No.1 is Kiwi specialist i.e. they are specialist in designing packages for New Zealand.
b That it was more economical to travel to New Zealand than any other country namely because New Zealand followed lot of Indian systems eg. Same left hand driving, metric system, lots of Indian restaurants etc.
c. That OP No.1 offered to take the driving package whereby one could drive a hired car and since petrol was very cheap it was affordable. It was also assured that in the package an SUV or any premium segment car would be available to Complainant including models Toyota or Mitsubishi Pajero.
d. That it was quoted by OP No.2 that the petrol would not cost more than Rs.25 per litre of petrol.
e. That a person would be waiting at the airport to receive the Complainant and a car would be handed over to him. That all the cars would be fitted with GPS and therefore there would be no question of lossing one’s way and thus it would make more sense to take the self-driven package.
f. That OP No.2 further made an assurance that the officials from the Europcar would be waiting at the Airport to receive Complainant and that they would hand over the coupons for the say at the various hotels.
g. That since Complainant was very apprehensive and asked OP No.2 as to what would happen in case there is any accident causing damage to the car on which he further assured that if an insurance is taken by Complainant which would cost him 120 NZ Dollars then in case of any liability, the same would be reduced to 337.50 dollars.”
When the complainant landed at Christchurch, New Zealand Airport alongwith his wife they were shocked and surprised to see that nobody was there to receive them or handover any package/ coupon as promised by OP No.1. After search they found Europcar counter which was manned by a younger girl. Complainant enquired from her and she informed that she had no information about any package and he also enquired about the SUV but she stated that SUV was not included in this package. They were provided Wagon Kia car as the travel agent had not made any prior reservation. He had no other alternative but to take the car otherwise he had to wait till another day when a Toyota model car would be available. The receptionist also informed that the car was not furnished with GPS and the complainant would have to pay extra for the same. Thus, he had to bear an extra cost of 110 NZ dollars to take the GPS alongwith the car so that they were not lost in the foreign land. The complainant was shocked to hear from the representative of OP No.1 that no such package was available being a Sunday who told him to come on Monday to see whether any documents could be made available. He had to purchase Sim card to call where Mr. Vincent received the phone call and informed that the travel agent could not send the travel package and assured him that by the next day they will send the package at the hotel where he is staying. When he reached the hotel again he was disappointed that no information was conveyed to the hotel authorities. Finally the hotel permitted them to stay. Where the car was parked the hotel authorities charged 17.5 NZ dollars from him which was not revealed by the OP No.1. It is submitted that he faced harassment at each destination as the travel documents were never delivered to them neither at Christchurch where they had stayed for two days nor at Franz Joseph where they stayed for 2 days nor at Queenston or at Wanaka where they stayed for 2 days and one day respectively. OPs had promised to give discount coupons but the OP No.1 had not provided the same. The car which he had hired got a 20 mm dent and he had to pay a sum of 330 NZ dollars apart from 337.50 NZ dollars paid to OP No.1. The OP No.1 never informed him that he had to inspect the vehicle before taking over the same. It is submitted that they had suffered a lot at the hands of OPs because of the negligent and malafide intention which caused him loss of Rs.50,000/- and ruined the honeymoon experience. After return he visited the office of OP No.1 and got assurance that they will look into the matter. After that he visited numerous times at the office of OP No.1 but no action was taken by them. He sent a legal notice on 11.10.09 to the OPs which was replied by the OPs vide reply dated 09.11.2009. Pleading misrepresentation, fraud and false assurance on the part of the OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following directions:-
- direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as excess amount spent during the trip,
- direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,90,000/- as damages for the trip,
- direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant,
- direct the OPs to pay to the complainant cost of the present proceedings.
OP No.1 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the OP No.1 is a travel division of M/s D Paul Consumer Benefit Ltd. and the leading travel agent and tour operator in India based at Delhi recognized by International Air Transport Association (IATA), Indian Association of Tour Operators (IATA), Association of Domestic Tour Operators of India (ADTO), Travel Agents Association of India (TAAI) and the Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India. It is submitted that the complainant kept silent for about 12 months after coming from the tour and sent first legal notice after a gap of 12 months. OP No.1 through their reply requested the complainant to forward all the emails and other communications made regarding the booking which the complainant failed to do so. It is also strange being a lawyer that the complainant did not send any communication even after coming from the tour in the month of October last year till 11.10.09. The delay of more than a year is deliberate and afterthought and cooked up to harass the OPs; that the complainant was so satisfied that few months back he enquired about the Goa Tour Package from the office of OP No.1. This proves that he was a satisfied customer and wanted to be a repeat customer of OP No.1. The complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no service pertaining to the allegations in the complaint was ever provided by the OP No.1 as OP No.1 who just booked the services for the complainant and the services were provided by the service providers abroad and Airlines Company. The booking was done at the instance of the complainant only after the complainant had understood and signed the terms and conditions of the package. In the present complaint the complainant wrongly filed a complaint against OP No.2. The OP No.2 is not a service provider. The points were raised at the time of replying to the legal notice dated 11.10.09 but the complainant deliberately not supplied specific details. It is not possible to admit such fact unless some email reference is made available. The complainant himself had stated that he will manage the visa as he is a lawyer and he will personally to get the Swiss visa by showing his marriage card. It is submitted that as per the cancellation policy the cancellation charges were to be charged. It was informed to the complainant that the cancellation charges will cost Rs.5500/- per person. The complainant himself asked for alternative tour package and the alternative arrangements were made. There was no adjustment of the cancellation charges and infact the complainant still owes cancellation charges to the OP No.1 which OP No.1 could not recover as it decided not to indulge in pain of legal recourse which was required to be undertaken to recover the amount. It is denied that the complainant was left with no choice or he was compelled to take alternative tour since he had paid the advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. It was never assured that OP No.1 was the market leader in handling packages for New Zealand or was offering the best deal and was known for customer satisfaction. It is denied that the OPs offered the complainant to take the driving package whereby one could drive a hired car since the petrol was very cheap or it was affordable. It was on the instance of the complainant that the self drive tour was booked. All the tour components were informed to the complainant in advance and he was aware at the time of booking. It is denied that any assurance was given in the package that any SUV or premium segment car would be available to the complainant including models Toyota or Mitsubishi Pajero; on the contrary the complainant was informed that he will be met by representative of Europcar who will assist him in collecting his Group C intermediate rental vehicle for which the complainant was to reach a concerned counter. The story of GPS is afterthought and concocted to raise false allegations against the OPs. There was no assurance that the car was fitted with GPS as alleged. The complainant was never told that the parking will be free. Charging of parking are charged as per the policy of service provider. The complainant was never assured for discount coupon nor it was part of package. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 in the written statement has stated that the present complaint has been wrongly filed against OP No.2 as the OP No.2 is neither service provider nor complainant is consumer of the OP No.2. He has reiterated the same averments as submitted by the OP No.1.
Complainant has filed separate rejoinders.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Raghuvinder Pal Singh, Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.1 and OP No.2 has filed his own affidavit in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant booked 7 nights/8 days package for Switzerland at the cost of Rs.94,000/- per person. In the absence of getting a valid visa for Switzerland the complainant changed the package for New Zealand. The OP has submitted an email dated 02.10.08 (copy Ex. OPW1/4) wherein they informed the complainant that “the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE is mandatory for Swiss Visa. Please note that we have already issued your ticket yesterday only. Date change penalty or it’s cancellation will cost you Rs.5500/- per person.”
The complainant submitted the tickets and proposed itinerary for New Zealand as Annexure C-1. The Annexure C-2 (Colly) relates to the balance payment made by the complainant to the OP. The complainant submitted the bills of Europcar as Annexure C-3 (Colly). The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 11.10.09 (copy Annexure C-7). OPs vide letter dated 09.11.09 replied to the legal notice (copy Annexure C-8).
It transpires from the documents filed by both the parties that the complainant has not filed any documents/letters/emails wherein he had informed the OPs with regard to the facts, the hotel and tour were not booked properly. Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on their part while he was in New Zealand alongwith his wife. Moreover, the complainant has not made any specific allegations to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Allegations are general in nature.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.08.17.
