BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.115/16.
Date of instt.: 03.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 03.02.2017.
Dr. Samir Gupta, age about 45 years, S/o Sh. Kuldeep Parkash Jain, R/o Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, opposite Canal Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Destiny Holidays, Subhash Saini and Surender Saini, Ambala Road, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
- Destiny Holidays, S.C.O. 142-143, 3rd floor, Sector-34A, Chandigarh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. R.C.Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vinay Verma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that in the month of January, 2016, he purchased a tour package of Singapore from the Op No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.4,27,000/- for the said tour package. It is alleged that as per terms and conditions of above-mentioned package, the complainant was assured that there will be facility of deluxe rooms in three Star Hotel for stay in Singapore but when the complainant reached at Claremont Hotel in Singapore, an ordinary hotel was provided to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that Sh. Subhash Saini is the real brother of answering Op Sanjay Saini, who is the director of Destiny Holidays; that Subhash Saini has nothing to do with the business of Destiny Holidays, at the same time the complainant has wrongly mentioned in the name of one Surender Saini, who is unknown for the Ops and he is neither the Director nor in any way connected with the business of Destiny Holidays; that the transaction between the complainant and the answering Ops took place through several e-mails; that the complainant was well informed in advance about each and everything and further the complainant was intimated that he will be provided stay in Claremont or similar hotel; in the e-mail dt. 24.11.2015, the detail of other place which were to be visited to the complainant has also been given and similarly in the e-mail dt. 23.11.2015, the detail of the hotel has been mentioned as budget hotel. It is pertinent to mention here that further the e-mail was sent on 11.01.2016 in which again the description of the name of hotel was given. The complainant carefully going through all the e-mails gave his consent for visiting the places. The complainant has contacted with the answering Ops after seeing all the details in the e-mails. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CG and closed evidence on 07.10.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed evidence on 22.11.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that in the month of January, 2016, the complainant purchased a tour package of Singapore from the Op No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.4,27,000/- for the said tour package. He further argued that as per terms and conditions of above-mentioned package, the complainant was assured that there will be facility of deluxe rooms in three Star Hotel for stay in Singapore but when the complainant reached at Claremont Hotel in Singapore, the complainant shocked that this hotel was not a three-star hotel rather it was a budget/ordinary hotel. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the documents Ex.CA and Ex.CE, wherein in the column of room type, it is mentioned that “Deluxe room” but the rooms provided were of third class, the bed sheets were in torn condition, the bath-rooms were giving bad smells. He further argued that the complainant contacted the Ops on telephone regarding the bad condition of the hotel, whereupon the Ops replied that they can change the hotel subject to the conditions that the charges would be borne by the complainant. He further argued that the Ops have cheated the complainant and there was a breach of term and condition of the tour package on the part of Ops which caused great mental agony and harassment to the complainant and his family members, who were with him during the stay in Singapur. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the transaction between the complainant and the Ops took place through several e-mails and the complainant was well informed in advance about each and everything and further the complainant was intimated that he will be provided stay in Claremont or similar hotel. He further argued in the e-mails dt. 23.11.2015 and 24.11.2015, the detail of other place which were to be visited was given to the complainant including the detail of hotel. He further argued that the complainant carefully going through all the e-mails gave his consent for visiting the places.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that there is no dispute that the complainant for himself and his family purchased a tour package of Singapore from the Op No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.4,27,000/- for the said tour package. The dispute between the parties is that as per complainant, the hotel provided to the complainant was not a three star hotel rather it was a budget/ordinary hotel. From the e-mails placed on the file, it is clear that the Ops have mentioned regarding detail of hotel as budget and not the three-star. Even the Ops have mentioned in the e-mails the name of hotel as clarmont or similar. The complainant has accepted the package after knowing the same. Therefore, the contention of complainant that the three-start hotel was to be provided by the Ops has no force. But in the hotel vouchers, Ex.CA and Ex.CE placed on the file by the complainant clearly shows that deluxe rooms were to be provided to the complainant and his family members by the Ops. The Ops have also placed the copy of said hotel vouchers on the file as Ex.R5 which means that the Ops have admitted this fact. So, from these documents, it is clear that the Ops had to provide the deluxe rooms in the Claremont hotel. The allegation of complainant that he contacted the Ops on telephone regarding the bad condition of the rooms provided to them by the said hotel is admitted by the Ops during the arguments and replied that the Ops had asked that the hotel can be changed at the cost of the complainant. From these facts, it is clear that the condition of the rooms was not good what to talk about the deluxe rooms. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ops have failed to provide the deluxe rooms as agreed by them in their package, so, the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant. In our view, the interest of justice will be met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its realization. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.03.02.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
