Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/261/2017

M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Rep. by its Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. G. Ilango, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Menon-Applt

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

       BEFORE        Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH                           PRESIDING JUDL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     MEMBER

 

FA.No.261/2017 &F. A. No.206/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.6.6.2017 made in C.C. No.97/2013 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai(South)

DATED THE  10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

F. A. No. 261/2017

 

1.M/s Thomas Cook (India) Ltd,

Rep.by its Manager,

No.47, 1^st Floor, Spur Tank Road,

Chetpet, Chennai 600 031 

 

2. M/s S.P.Sivabalan,

Senior Manager- Leasure Travel,

M/s Thomas Cook (India) Ltd,

Shops, V & W No. 16 & 17, 1^st Floor,

KRV Arcade, AR Plaza, North Valli street,

Madurai                                                                  ..Appellants/opposite parties 2 & 3

 

                                  Vs

 

1.Dr.G.Ilango,

S/o R.D.Gunasekaran,

No.24, B-Block, 6^th street,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai 600 102                                          ..1^st Respondent/complainant

 

2. Mr.K.Jayaraj

Managing Director,

M/s Scans Parell Life Sciences (P) Ltd,

No.47/2,SBI Staff 1^st Colony,

Behind Hotel Sri Gowrikrishna,

Bye pass Road,

Madurai 625 010                                      ..2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party

 

Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties 2 and 3      : M/s Menon

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/ complainant               : M/s M.A.Lakshmipathi

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party      : M/s S.R.sudhan Raj

 

F. A. No. 206/2018

1.Dr.G.Ilango,

S/o R.D.Gunasekaran,

No.24, B-Block, 6^th street,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai 600 102                                           ..Appellant/ complainant

                                                        Vs

1.Mr.K.Jayaraj,

Managing Director,

M/s Sans Pareil Life Sciences (P) Ltd,

No. 47/2, SBI Staff 1^st Colony,

Behind Hotel Sri Gowrikrishna,

Bye Pass Road,

Madurai 625 010                                         

 

2.M/s Thomas Cook (India) Ltd,

Rep.by its Manager,

No.47, 1^st Floor, Spur Tank Road,

Chetpet, Chennai 600 031 

 

3. M/s S.P.Sivabalan,

Senior Manager- Leasure Travel,

M/s Thomas Cook (India) Ltd,

Shops, V & W No. 16 & 17, 1^st Floor,

KRV Arcade, AR Plaza, North Valli street,

Madurai                                            ..Respondents/opposite parties

 

 Counsel for the Appellant/complainant         : M/s M.A.Lakshmipathi,

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/1^st op           : M/s B.Vijay

Counsel for Respondents/ops 2 and 3          : M/s Menon                    

 

These appeals are coming before us for final hearing on  25.1.2023 and on hearing the arguments of bothsides  and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

 

COMMON ORDER

Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL, MEMBER

 

1.       The FA.No. 261/2017  has been filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3/Appellants herein  and F.A.No. 206/2018 has been filed by the complainant/ Appellant. under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order of the  District Commission, Chennai(South) made in C.C. No.97/2013, dated 6.6.2017 in allowing the complaint.  The District Commission, Chennai(South) directed the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18.3.2013, till the date of the order i.e 6.6.2017 along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Chennai(South).

3.       The factual background giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-

            The complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party is arranging tours specially for doctors. In a tour programme, called GIP i.e., Tour of Summer 2012 scheduled to depart on 10.5.2012 for 19 days covering New York, Washington, Niagara, Los Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angles, Orlando with Bahamas Cruise. The 1^st opposite party has arranged the tour through the 3^rd  opposite party and 3^rd opposite party has given a booking certificate confirming that the complainant is travelling along with his wife M/s Indrani for GIP tour of summers 2012 scheduled to depart during 10.5.2012. The complainant and his wife are retired doctors in Tamil Nadu Medical Services having shown interest in the said tour programme, the cost of the tour programme for both is fixed at Rs.6,48,200/- which is paid by the complainant.

            After paying the entire tour amount, the complainant and his wife received a call on 4.5.2012 from his son-in law Saravanan Sivapatham,  employed in Wipro at Adelaide, Australia that Mrs. Logalakshmi Saravanan daughter of the complainant was admitted in Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, and on receipt of the message from son-in-law, the complainant at 12.52 P.M, on the same day contacted the 1^st opposite party for cancellation of trip for himself and his wife and refund the maximum amount along with the passport after deducting cancellation charges. Since the opposite parties has not responded properly, on 6.5.2012 at 9.45 A.M, the 1^st opposite party went to meet him as per his instruction, at Hotel Palmgrove, Chennai. The office was located and the 1^st opposite party was not present there. Evenafter repeated requests and demands, and emails, the 1^st opposite party has not returned the passport. The 2^nd opposite party returned the passport only on 10.5.2012, hence the complainant and his wife were not able to go to Australia. Hence the complainant sent lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties and the same was received by the opposite parties but not chosen to send any reply. Due to this gross deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant, hence filed this complaint.

          The 1^st opposite party was called absent and set exparte.

            The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite parties puts the complainant to strickt to proof of every allegation. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties also stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party has made independent representation to the complainant and issued and independent brochure. There was no correspondence between the complainant and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Admittedly the complainant has not paid any amount to these opposite parties for participation in the tour. The complainant has made payment only to the 1^st opposite party as per booking form/contract entered into between the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties further stated that the tour was to commence on 10.5.2012 and end on 28.5.2012, for a period of 19 days covering New York, Washington, Niagara, Los Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angles, Orlando with Bahamas Cruise.     On 4.5.2012, the complainant cancel the participation of himself and his wife on personal grounds that his daughter was unwell in Australia. Admittedly the complainant communicated about the cancellation of tour for himself and his wife with the 1^st opposite party alone.

            As per the cancellation clause set out in the terms and conditions attached to the booking form, it was clearly mentioned that cancellation made within 10 days prior to departure of the tour would entail cancellation charges of 100% of the tour cost . This is because all services such as airlines seats, hotel accommodation, ground transportation etc., for group tours are pre-block well in advance. The opposite parties further stated that as per booking form, the tour cost charged by the 3^rd opposite party to 1^st opposite party per person was only Rs.79,000/- + Rs.1,65,000/- in all a sum of approximately Rs.2,34,000/- for a sharing a double hence the amount charged for two passengers is only Rs.4,68,000/-. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party are nothing to do with  privity the transactions between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. The complainant is put to strict  proof of the contention that he paid the 1^st opposite party, a sum of Rs.6,48,200/-. It is also pertinent to note that no payment was made by the complainant to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party while handing over the passports to the complainant on 10.5.2012 had clearly indicated that for any refund of the complainant would have to contact only the 1^st opposite party,  as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, by this, these opposite parties stated that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint in limini.

7.    In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant along with proof affidavit  22  documents were filed, which were marked as Ex.A.1 to A.. 22 on the side of the complainant. Ex.B.1 to B.4  were marked on the side of the opposite parties 2 and 3.

8.    The District Commission, Chennai(South) directed the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18.3.2013, till the date of the order i.e 6.6.2017 along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.

 

We have heard the submissions and perused the materials available on records and the order impugned.  There is no representation for 1^st opposite party.

Now the point for consideration is whether the appeals are to be allowed or not?

          The complainant  and his wife paid Rs.6,48,200/- for the GIP i.e., Tour of Summer 2012 scheduled to depart on 10.5.2012 for 19 days covering New York, Washington, Niagara, Los Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angles, Orlando with Bahamas Cruise. On 4.5.2012, the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party for cancellation of tour for himself and his wife after deducting cancellation charges along with passport for taking new visa to Australia, due to the call he received from his son-in-law informing that the complainant’s daughter was admitted in Royal Adelide Hospital in Australia.  The opposite parties has not responded properly, for the complainant’s repeated requests, demands and emails. The 2^nd opposite party returned the passport only on 10.5.2012, hence the complainant and his wife were not able to go to Australia in appropriate time to assist their own daughter caused grave mental agony.  6 days earlier to the departure, the complainant cancelled the trip due to unavoidable circumstance of medical ailment to his daughter. The 1^st opposite party collected additional sum of Rs.1,80,200/- apart from the amount, they paid to the 2^nd 3^rd opposite parties. Though there is no privity of contract directly between the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and complainant, there is a contract between the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd and 3^rd  opposite parties. The complainant has also not taken any step to prove whether the amount paid towards tickets are refundable on cancellation. Moreover the complainant is aware of the cancellation and refund details before joining  the tour package, inspite of the fact the complainant decided to cancel the tour package due to his personal reasons and we don’t find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the District Commission, Chennai (South).

 

Common order pronounced.

      In the result,  both the appeals are dismissed, confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South)

 

FA.No. 261/2017

            The appeal is dismissed in respect of Appellant/opposite parties 2 and 3 and we confirm the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South), made in CC.No. 97/2013 dated 6.6.2017. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

FA.No. 206/2018

            The appeal is dismissed in respect of Appellant/complainant and we confirm the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South), made in CC.No. 97/2013 dated 6.6.2017. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                            S.KARUPPIAH                

      MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDING JUDL MEMBER