Delhi

East Delhi

CC/259/2013

SHRI NITIN MAHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.PAULS TRAVELS - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 259/13

 

1. Shri Nitin Mahna

S/o Shri Vijay Mahna

 

2. Mrs. Taruna Mahna

W/o Shri Nitin Mahna

 

Both at: R/o C-175

Anand Vihar, Delhi – 110 092                             ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

B-50, Shivalik, New Delhi – 110 017                                  …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 26.03.2013

Judgement Reserved on: 16.11.2018

Judgement Passed on: 19.11.2018

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Nitin Mahna (C-1) and Mrs. Taruna Mahna (C-2) against D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Nitin Mahna and Taruna Mahna have a package tour for Hong Kong, arranged by      D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. (OP) from 10.08.2012 to 16.08.2012.  They deposited initial amount of Rs. 40,000/- vide cash receipt no. 006317 & 006318 on 16.07.2012.  They further deposited another amount of Rs. 60,000/- vide cash receipt no. 006656 & 006657 on 21.07.2012. 

          It has been stated that wife of complainant no. 1 viz.             Mrs. Taruna Mahna went through a medical examination on 25.07.2012 as she was a case of G2A and going through infertility treatment.  It was found that she was having six weeks pregnancy and she was advised complete bed rest.  After being aware of the medical condition of Mrs. Taruna Mahna (complainant no. 2), complainant no. 1 contacted customer care number on 26.07.2012 and made a request for cancellation of the tour, but he was advised to wait for      2-3 days for the message of cancellation. 

          After waiting for three days, he again contacted OP’s customer care on 30.07.2012 and was advised to put his request through email and in pursuance of the same, he sent the request for cancellation through email on 31.07.2012.  He also furnished a copy of medical certificate issued by the doctors.  He did not get any satisfactory response from OP regarding his cancellation of the package tour and refund.  When he gave legal notice to OP on 08.08.2012, they have sent two cheques of Rs. 13,000/- each bearing no. 281309 and 2813010 dated 10.08.2012, drawn on HDFC bank. 

          It has been stated that complainants were entitled for refund of booking amount as the cancellation of tour was due to medical reasons of complainant no. 2, which was conveyed to OP 15 days prior to the tour schedule.  Thus, they have claimed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards legal expenses, mental harassment and agony.

3.       In the written statement, filed on behalf of OP, they have stated that photocopy of Annexure ‘C’ of the complaint which was purported to be a medical certificate was disputed as it was of dated 01.08.2012 as the complainants have claimed about the examination conducted on 25.07.2012 which clearly reflected that the medical certificate was fabricated.  They have denied other facts also.

4.       Complainants have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein they have controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted their pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, complainant Shri Nitin Mahna have examined himself.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited the documents such as copy of receipts dated 16.07.2012 (Ex.CW-1/A & 1/B), copy of receipts dated 21.07.2012 (Ex.CW-1/C & 1/D), copy of medical certificate      (Ex.CW-1/E), copy of emails (Ex.CW-1/F), copy of legal notice and its receipts (Ex.CW-1/G & 1/H) and copy of cheques dated 10.08.2012 (Ex.CW-1/I & 1/J).

          Complainant Mrs. Taruna Mahna have also examined herself and narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  She has got exhibited the same documents, which have been exhibited by complainant no. 1. 

          In defence, D.Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. (OP) have examined Shri Raghuvinder Pal Singh, Director of OP, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has also got exhibited the documents such as copy of reply dated 11.08.2012 sent to both the complainants and its postal receipt alongwith tracking report (Annex.OP-A & OP-B colly.)  and copy of terms and conditions (Annex.OP-C).   

6.       We have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of OP and the material placed on record as both the parties did not appear to argue in person.  In the written arguments filed on behalf of OP, it has been stated that booking was under Guarantee cases attracting 100% cancellation charges.  It has also been stated that the medical certificate was of dated 01.08.2012, though medical examination was conducted on 25.07.2012 which reflects that it was a fabricated one.

          From the documents placed on record, it is evident that the complainant have submitted the medical certificate of dated 01.08.2012, though she got herself checked on 25.07.2012.  She should have informed to OP immediately on her examination alongwith the medical certificate.  The medical certificate is of later date which creates doubt on her medical condition. 

          Not only that, if the terms and conditions annexed with Annexure OP-C, which is the details in respect of booking, it is noticed that cancellation policy was not applicable in respect of booking done as guarantee booking.  On these terms and condition, complainant have put his signatures from where it is evident that they have accepted the cancellation policy which was applicable to the booking done as Guarantee Booking. 

          Since guarantee booking was done, the cancellation policy in respect of guarantee booking have to be applied.  That being so, there was no deficiency on the part of OP.  As there was no deficiency on the part of OP, the case of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

       Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.                         

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President