BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 75 of 2016
Date of Institution : 11.3.2016
Date of Decision : 22.2.2017
Dr. Anjani Kumar C/o Sanjivni Hospital, under Over Bridge, Near Railway Crossing, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Hitesh Talwar Proprietor Riya Travels, Near Talwar Nursing Home, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
2. Dpauls Tour and Travels, B-50, Shivalik Malvia Nagar, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.J.D.Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Dhandal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
It is the case of complainant that complainant and his friends got booked tour of Mauritius and Dubai from opposite party no.1 who is an authorized agent of op no.2. The complainant got booked this tour for him and his wife at the rate of Rs.92,000/- per person for eight nights including air tickets via Dubai and accommodation in Dubai as well as in Mauritius including breakfast and sightseeing. The complainant was assured accommodation with breakfast, desert Safari with dinner, dhow cruise with dinner, half day city tour and airport transfers in Dubai. He was also assured four nights accommodation with breakfast and dinner, east tour with lie Aux cerfs, north tour with Port Louis City, south tour with phoenix town and airport transfers in Mauritius. It is further alleged that complainant was confirmed about booking in Tarisa Resorts (superior room) from 17.1.2016 to 21.1.2016. When they reached Mauritius, they were stunned to see that instead of Tarisa Resorts, the complainant, his wife, his friend Umesh Kumar and his wife were forced to stay in Le Palmsite Resort and Spa which is a hotel of inferior quality instead of Tarisa Resorts and is 8 Kms. away from that Resorts. The rooms given were too small having dormitory type and were not fully furnished. The complainant choose Tarisa Resort because it had Indian restaurant in it and it was a beach resort but hotel Le Palmsite was neither a beach resort nor having Indian restaurant and due to this the complainant and his family who are pure vegetarian found hard to get reasonable food in the hotel. The complainant immediately contacted with the ops but they did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. The complainant and his friends were also charged Rs.760/- (Indian currency) in extra. It is further averred that in this manner, the complainant, his wife and his friends were separated from their group and were forced to stay in inferior hotel instead of the superior hotel as booked and assured by ops. The complainant has suffered great mental tension, hardship and disappointment etc. on account of act and conduct of ops for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to refund a sum of Rs.1,84,000/- to the complainant on account of tour charges, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement. It has been averred that op no.1 intimated about the problem of complainant to the op no.2 but the op no.2 denied to pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The op no.1 has not committed any negligence or unfair trade practice rather the same was committed by op no.2. As per the version of the complainant, he approached the op no.1 and his request has been forwarded to op no.2 but they did not resolve the problem of complainant. As such, dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 has been prayed for.
3. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of booking reservation number Ex.C2, copy of travel programme Ex.C3, copy of travel programme Ex.C4, copy of receipt of Rs.380 Ex.C5, copy of invoice Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of document (containing pages 1 to 3) Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that complainant was assured about confirmation of booking in Tarisa Resorts from 17.1.2016 to 21.1.2016, but when they reached Mauritius, they were stunned that instead of Tarisa Resorts, they were forced to stay in Le Palmsite Resort and Spa which was a hotel of inferior quality instead of Tarisa Resorts and rooms given were too small having dormitory type and complainant was charged Rs.380/- in extra. In the travel programme through Riya Travels (Ex.C3), the name of hotel which was to be provided at Mauritius is mentioned as Tarisa Resort. However, providing of another hotel by Tarisa Resort & Spa at Mauritius does not give rise to any cause of action to the complainant against the opposite parties and ops cannot be held deficient in service because there is nothing on file to prove that rooms were not of equal quality and were of inferior quality.
7. Keeping in view our above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the ops and as such the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:22.2.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
