PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        By this complaint the Complainant has prayed that it be held and declared that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act).  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation for causing physical and mental agony and hardship, etc. and cost of Rs.30,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses plus Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.   

2)        According to the Complainant, she had purchased a vacation package to Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore from the Opposite Parties on payment of due consideration. The Complainant is therefore, consumer within the meaning and definition under Sec.2(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as defined under Sec.2(1)(g) and (r) of the Act.  The tour programme was from 09/09/2011 to 23/09/2011.  On 18/09/2011 as a party itinerary, they reached to Cultural Hotel, Singapore at 14 hours Singapore time.  The Tour Manager of M/s. Guideline Travels Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Mahendra Tiwari asked the Complainant and her son to share a room with another woman tour member.  The Complainant resisted the said request by saying that it is impossible to share room with an unknown person.  According to the Complainant, she called to the Head Office of the M/s. Guidelines Travels Pvt. Ltd. to register her complaint upto 21 hours Singapore time. On resisting the request of the Tour Manager by the Complainant he asked the Complainant to wait in the hotel lobby until the arrangement would be made.  It is alleged that at 23 hours Singapore time the said manager of the M/s. Guidelines Travel Pvt. Ltd. told that the Complainant has no choice but to share a room.  It is submitted that the Complainant had a spinal fracture at the time of trip.  The said fact was also told to the Tour Manager, but he was non cooperative and therefore, the Complainant had to undergo physical discomfort and mental torture due to inhuman behavior of the staff of the M/s. Guidelines Travel Pvt. Ltd.  It is submitted that therefore, the Complainant had no choice but to share room with the stranger.

3)        According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 who are the Director and Assistant of M/s. Guidelines Travel Pvt. Ltd. threatened the Complainant that if they do not cooperate she and her son will be dropped in between the programme of that tour.  It is submitted that authorized personal at the head office of the said travel at Mumbai was also non cooperative.  It is submitted that the said act on the part of the Opposite Parties itself is nothing but the deficiency in service on their part.  The aforesaid incident spoiled the vacation of the Complainant and her son.   According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party told the Complainant that she should share a room with the another tour member as she is not with her husband and separate room is only for couple. It is submitted that the said sharing with that unknown lady was very uncomfortable for the Complainant and her son. The Complainant therefore, by letter dtd.07/11/2011 reported the un-human treatment she had to meet at Singapore.  The copy of which is marked at Annexure ‘C-1’.  The Opposite Party did not reply to the said letter.  The Complainant informed to Indian High Commission, Singapore on 19/11/2011. The copy of the said complaint is marked as Annexure ‘C-3’.  According to the Complainant, in the broacher also it is mentioned that all the rooms will be provided on twin sharing basis.  The copy of which is Annexure ‘C-4’.  The Complainant therefore, prayed the reliefs as mentioned in para 1 of this order.

4)        The Opposite Parties contested the claim by filing their written statement.  It is denied that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Act.  It is also denied that the Complainant is consumer under the Act.  According to the Opposite Parties, they are reputed tour operators for last 15 years.  The Opposite Parties have planned the vacations of thousands of tourist and travelers and given their services whole heartedly to their customers and they were fully satisfied with the services of the Opposite Parties.  It is submitted that the entire tour plan is given to the tourist well in advance and each and every tourist are aware of the travelling plan/schedule.

5)        It is contended that on 08/08/2011 the Complainant and one Pallavi Shah approached the Opposite Party and booked the tour “Glimses09/09” for three persons i.e. Hina Devi (Complainant), Pallavi Joshi and Vaibhav Gandhi and booked one room for three persons (TRPL) and accordingly dully filled the booking form and the same has been signed by the Complainant.  The scheduled payment was as follows of three persons. 

Date                Receipt No.   Amount.

08/08/2011    RC/1042        Rs.20,000/-    Booking of Heena Devi.

08/08/2011    RC/1052        Rs.20,000/-    Booking of Pallavi Shah

30/08/2011    RC/1177        Rs.30,000/-    Payment of Pallavi Shah

30/08/2011    RC/1178        Rs.26,000/-    Final payment of Pallavi Shah

02/09/2011    RC/1190        Rs.74,100/-    Final payment of Heena

02/09/2011    RC/1192        Rs.20,000/-    Deposit of Vaibhav Gandhi

02/09/2011    RC/1191        Rs.74,100/-    Final payment of Vaibhav Gandhi

      According to the Opposite Parties, the entire tour cost of three persons including cruise charges (Complainant and Pallavi Shah) and tips for Glimpses09/09 was Rs.2,64,200/-.  It is submitted that the list of passengers, hotels were booked as per the requirement paid in advance and the Complainant was aware with the schedule of stay.  The copies of the same are marked as Exh.1- 4, such as booking form, payment receipts, tour plan and list of hotels. 

 6)        It is contended that the Complainant booked one TPLS means three persons sharing one room.  It is submitted that the Complainant, Pallavi Shah and Vaibhav Gandhi shared one room at Pattaya (09/09/2011 to 12/09/2011), Bangkok 12/09/2011 to 15/09/2011 Genting (15/09/2011 to 17/09/2011) and Kulal lampur (17/09/2011 to 18/09/2011) and did not raise any objection in sharing one room.  It is contended that on 18/09/2011 at 14 hrs. hotel room was allotted to the Complainant which she refused and started demanding two rooms and refused to share room by three person.  The Tour Leader of Opposite Parties Mr. Mahendra Tiwari, informed the Complainant that according to tour plan the Complainant had booked one triple sharing room, thus, one room will be allotted as booked and paid by the Complainant.  The Complainant refused to accept the request of the tour leader and started abusing in filthy language to him.  It is contended that on the aforesaid date the Complainant joined the evening tour programme and enjoyed the dinner alongwith the group and on return to the hotel at 22 hrs. she again started demanding two rooms.  It is contended that Mahendra Tiwari and Hotel management failed to control the Complainant and finally hotel management were forced to call the police at 23.30 hrs. and after their arrival the Complainant stopped abusing and creating nasty scene and calmed down. On 19/09/2011 at Sagar Raina Restaurant during lunch Vaibhav Gandhi repeated the same incident and demanded two rooms in a very indecent manner before all the passengers and pushed Mahendra Tiwari and forced him to lodge police complaint against Vaibhav Gandhi at Singapore Police Station.  The copy of which is marked at Exh.‘5’. 

7)        According to the Opposite Parties, after return of the tour the Complainant asked the Opposite Parties for LTC Certificate in which cost of travel expenses was exaggerated to which Opposite Parties declined to issue wrong and fraudulent certificate in view of the policy of the Opposite Parties.  It is contended that the Complainant threatened to harass the Opposite Parties as they refused to issue the LTC Certificate as desired by the Complainant.  The other allegations made in the complaint are specifically denied by the Opposite Parties.  It is contended that the tour started on 09/09/2011 and completed on 23/09/2011. The Complainant has only grievance on 18/09/2011 that she was forced to share the room with a stranger.  It is contended that the present complaint is filed with malafide intention and the same may be dismissed with compensatory cost as being frivolous as per the provisions under Sec.26 of the Act.  It is contended that the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed.  The complaint therefore be dismissed with cost. 

8)        The Complainant has filed her affidavit-in-evidence.  One Mr. Hetal Pandya, Operation Manager of Opposite Parties filed his affidavit-in-evidence and the Opposite Party No.1 Pradeep Sabu also filed his affidavit-in-evidence.  Both the parties filed the written arguments and produced the documents in support of their contentions.  We heard the oral argument of Complainant in person and on behalf of Opposite Parties of Ld.Advocate Smt. S.S.Dwivedi. 

9)        The Complainant in her affidavit-in-evidence has specifically stated that at Pattaya from 09/09/2011 to 12/09/2011 Pallavi Shah shared one room with Vaidehi Thakkar and at Bangkok from 12/09/2011 to 15/09/2011 with the same lady Vaidehi Thakkar.  She has also stated that at Kalalulmpur from 15/09/2011 to 17/09/2011 Pallavi Shah has shared one single room for herself.  In the broacher of the tour programme submitted by the Opposite Parties at Exh.‘3’ it is specifically mentioned that cost per person on twin sharing for Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore land arrangements – adult Rs.74,000/-.  The Opposite Party has filed one list showing the hotel arrangements made by it at Exh.‘4’ wherein in all tour programme the rooms are shown at TPL for the Complainant, Vaibhav Gandhi and Pallavi Shah. The Complainant, however, produced the another hotel room accommodation arrangement made by the Opposite Parties wherein as per attachment No.4 filed on record of this case on 28/06/2013 by the Complainant it is shown that whatever the Complainant has stated in her affidavit was arranged during her aforesaid tour by the Opposite Parties.  Furthermore, the case made out by the Opposite Parties that Pallavi Shah and Complainant had made booking of their tour together on 08/08/2011 also cannot be relied upon as Pallavi Shah booked her tour from Kandivali Office of the Opposite Parties on 08/08/2011 and further payments were made by her to the Opposite Parties at Kandivali Office.  On the other hand the Complainant had made payments for her tour at Head Office, Kalbadevi of the Opposite Parties.  Besides that as per the flight details placed on record by the Complainant as attachment No.6 filed on 28/06/2013 the air tickets appears to have been booked by the Opposite Parties in the name of the Complainant and Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi together.  In the said document the name of Pallavi Shah does not appear alongwith the Complainant & Vaibhav Gandhi. Considering these documents and as per the itinerary placed on record by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Party charged Rs.74,000/- per person on twin sharing basis.  The Complainant has come out with the specific case that she was not provided twin sharing basis room at Singapore on 18/09/2011 and 19/09/2011 and therefore, she suffered mental stress and agony as she and her son Vaibhav Gandhi were required to share one room at Singapore with Pallavi Shah because of the threatening given by the tour leader Mahendra Tiwari. We find much substance in the submission made by the Complainant in view of the aforesaid documents and as the Opposite Parties have charged per person Rs.74,000/- for twin sharing basis room and later on directed to share one more person at Singapore who was stranger to the family of the Complainant i.e. Pallavi Shah and as such, the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency of services and unfair trade practices.  Thus, the submission made by the Complainant that she is entitled for compensation for the mental agony, stress and embarrassment suffered by her is just and proper. The Complainant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- on that count but we find that the said amount is much exorbitant and an amount of Rs.30,000/- on that count in our view would be just and proper.  The Complainant has claimed Rs.30,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this complaint, in our view on both these counts an amount of Rs.8,000/- in total would be sufficient.  Hence, the following order is passed –

O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.310/2011 is partly allowed against both the Opposite Parties.

ii.                 It is declared that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

iii.               The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty Thousand Only) as compensation to the Complainant towards mental agony & stress suffered by her due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practices adopted by the Opposite Parties.   

iv.               The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand Only) towards the legal expense and cost of this proceeding to the Complainant. 

v.                  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to comply order part No.iii & iv within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

vi.               Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.