DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.479/2011
Sh. S. C. Pahwa (Senior Citizen
R/o B4/246 Safdarjung Enclave, 65 years old)
New Delhi-110029 ….Complainant
Versus
Director,
D Pauls Travels and Tours Ltd.
B-50, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 02.12.11
Date of Order : 09.06.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Admitted case of the parties is that the complainant and his wife Smt. Shanti Pahwa booked the tour to Hongkong and Macau from 30.06.11 to 05.07.11 from the OP and the complainant alongwith his wife undertook the air journey and they arrived at Hongkong Airport on 30.06.11 at 7.40 a.m. The grievances of the complainant started from there which may be summarized as follows:-
Day-1
(a) No one came to pick up them at the airport. They had to take the help of one Indian and Mr. Kelvin, representative of Freedom Travel Ltd. – Hongkong arrived at the airport very late and was very rude and discourteous,
(b) they were to be picked from the hotel at 7.30 p.m. so that they could have their dinner at an Indian restaurant at 8 p.m. However, Mr. Kelvin arrived late, gave excuses and ultimately they took their dinner of their own. Mr. Kelvin picked them up at 9.20 p.m. and they reached the restaurant at 10 p.m. where they had just tried some portion of the food.
Day-2
The tour was not at all joyous because of the behavior of Mr. Kelvin who was non-cooperative and hostile.
Day-3
No complaint.
Day-4 & 5
They were taken to Macau where the guide was better. They found that the guide Mr. Andy did not take them to St. Paul Church and Kwan Yam Statue as per the itinerary supplied by the OP.
Day-6
They were fully fed up with the behavior of the guides.
The conclusion of the complainant is that the tour was a flop tour. They faced mental agony, trauma and sleepless night as it was all unsystematic, unorganized specially the guide of HKG Mr. Kelvin as a result their blood pressure shot up and the metabolism was disturbed at this age which took one week to recover under doctors guidance. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed for directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.74,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.35,000/- equal to Rs.45000/- incurred on sleep apnea treatment which was developed due to the mismanagement tour as advised by the doctor, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience etc. and Rs.5000/- towards cost of legal notice and other expense.
Reply of the OP day-wise is as follows:-
Day-1
The complainant did not reach correct meeting place at Hongkong Airport which caused some delay. Pickup time for dinner was 19.30 hrs. and the table was booked at Indian restaurant by 20.30 hrs. Unfortunately there was a big traffic jam on Tsuen Wan highway because of some accident. Mr. Kelvin reached hotel by 20.00 hrs. and ultimately the coach reached at the hotel and took the complainant/s to restaurant by 21.30 hrs. and the complainant enjoyed dinner.
Day-2
Denied for want of knowledge.
Day-3
No service provided on the day
Day 4 & 5
ST. Paul Church and Kwan Yin statue Pal were available to the complainant but they voluntarily did not attend the places.
Day-6
Guides were coordinating in a professional manner.
It is denied that the tour was a flop tour and because of this they suffered hypertension etc. It is further pleaded that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction because the OP had just done booking at the instance of the complainant and it was not a service provider for the tour components. It is stated that it was made clear at the time of booking to the complainant that it was a tentative itinerary and also mentioned in the terms and conditions “date and time of tour programmed can be changed by local agent”.
In the rejoinder the complainant has agreed that itinerary is always tentative and date & time of tour can be changed if there is any situation beyond control or disturbances or any problem of any kind. However, it is pleaded that this forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is stated that the passengers (including the complainant) were never told that they had gathered at the wrong place at Hongkong Airport. It is stated that the late arrival of the coach for dinner was justified on the plea that there was an accident and hence the coach had come late whereas the reality was different as the coach was performing two different assignments. The OP did not take signatures of the complainant on the voluntary form that the complainant did not want to go to St. Paul Church and Kwan Yam Statue.
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.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the complainant in person. None appeared on behalf of the OP to advance oral arguments despite opportunity given in this behalf.
We have gone through the file.
Admittedly, the complainant had booked the tour in question from the OP. Therefore, the agreement with regard to the tour in question was executed between the complainant and the OP. The local tour operators, if any, either at Hongkong or Macau were not parties to the agreement executed between the complainant and the OP. Therefore, the OP has to be held liable for any lapse of service on the part of local tour operators at Hongkong and Macau. In this regard, the OP must be having internal arrangement or agreement with local tour operators to which neither the complainant nor any other passenger is a part. Therefore, the OP cannot escape from its liability by taking the plea that the OP is not a service provider. OP must be held responsible for all the tour components. We do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the OP that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The grievance of the complainant is that the representative of the local tour operator had reached late to pick up them from the Hongkong Airport. In this regard, the plea taken by the OP is that the complainant and other passengers had gathered at the wrong place. Second complaint is with regard to late pick up for dinner on day 1. In this regard, the complainant has himself admitted in the rejoinder that it was explained that the late arrival of the coach was because an accident had taken place and there was a traffic jam on the road. Thus, the plea
taken by the OP seems to be more convincible and reasonable. When the local tour operator at Macau had covered all the tour points at Macau, we do not see any reason to believe the complainant that they were not taken to St. Paul Church and Kwan Yam Statue. It is not the case of the complainant that all the members of their group were not taken to these places. Therefore, in our considered opinion, here also the case of the complainant lies on a weaker footage which can collapse any time. Complainant has not raised any grievance regarding the quality of the hotel, quality of food etc. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint 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 09.06.17.
