This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that after going through various meetings and discussions with the opposite party no. 1(B) regarding a tour package of North Sikkim, the complainant confirmed a booking of packaged tour of North Sikkim including Gangtok in the company of opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 is in the hotel business where a room was booked in the name of complainant and the tour was held by the agency provided by the opposite party no. 2 and on a previous occasion the opposite party nos. A) and B) sent emails to the complainant on 24.11.2017 including one quotation to make payment of Rs. 12,828/- in the name of opposite party no. 1 and the complainant made a payment in the mode of money transfer of Rs.12,828/- in the name of opposite party no.1 through SBI, Chinsurah PB Branch, vide current A/c number-33580903380 on that very date and on 25.11.2017 the opposite party no. B) made a call to the complainant for making another payment of Rs.7172/- in the mode of cash to be paid at his residential address and the complainant had done the same as per direction of opposite party no. B) and thereafter opposite party no. B) sent an email which including an attachment file showing the payment was done in respect of the booking of the hotel, foods, lodging, car rents including all taxes through opposite party no. 1 to confirm the booking on 30.11.2017 and on 9.3.2018 the complainant along with his wife boarded in the train vides number 15959 from Bandel Junction to New Jalpaiguri Junction and reaching there the complainant headed towards Gangtok by availing a rental car and at Gangtok he went to the Doma Residency, opposite party no. 2 as per previous discussion and on 10.3.2018 the complainant checked in the said hotel but after check into the hotel he came to know that the food was not included in the said tour package and at the time of check out on 11.3.2018 the opposite party no.2 said that the additional car rent in respect of the sightseeing is to be paid by the complainant in Lachen-Lachung tour and the complainant realized that the payment regarding local guide, driver in respect of the sight-seeing in North Sikkim was to be paid by the complainant as the cost of entire sight-seeing was not included in the tour and the complainant was compelled to pay Rs.9000/- on spot for sight-seeing and the behavior of the driver towards them was very rude and homestays at Lachen and Lachung were very unhealthy and unhygienic and the complainant paid Rs.11,877/- for foods and he had to pay the amount in the hands of the driver as the driver was previously appointed by the agency on behalf of opposite party no. 1 through opposite party no.2 and after finishing the journey on 13.3.2018 the complainant returned to Gangtok and again checked into the above mentioned hotel but there he was surprised to know that the said room was booked for 13.3.2018 to 14.3.2018 then he tried to convince the opposite party no. 2 that opposite party no. B) told him that the room was booked for 13.3.2018 to 15.3.2018 and as per such discussion he had no source to arrange another hotel for 13.3.2018 to 15.3.2018 as he had booking for train from NJP but the opposite party no. 2 started to misbehave towards the complainant and then finding no other alternative the complainant booked another hotel for stay on 13.3.2018 to 15.3.2018 and he had to pay a sum of Rs. 3300/- and again the complainant met with opposite parties at their office but they entirely refused to meet with him as well as refused all the allegations and the cause of action of the instant case arose on 24.11.2017. 

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 50,977/- and to pay sum of Rs.12,00,000/- for breach of contract or agreement and to pay sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and to pay sum of Rs.49,023/- as litigation cost and to give any other relief or reliefs which may deem fit and proper for ends of justice.

            The opposite party No. 1(B) contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that Holiday Home India have complied with the Lachung and Lachen package and provided cars and Hotels as per demand of the complainant and what Hotel Doma Residency had done regarding extension of stay till 15.3.2018 the answering opposite party cannot be responsible for the same as the complainant has booked the Hotel through this opposite party till 14.3.2018 and the complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.12,00,000/- only from the opposite parties because of the fact that the complainant had/ has availed all the facilities according to the terms and conditions of the contract of the Tour and thus, the present case of the complainant will be rejected with cost.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.

            The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.

            Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their addresses within the district of Hooghly &the cause of action partly arises within the district. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The complainant in his argument stated that he communicated the opposite parties to conduct tour package of North Sikkim through one of the agent namely, Shyamal Chakraborty. After a number of discussions he paid a sum of Rs.12,828/- in the name of opposite party no. 1 through SBI, Chinsurah PB Branch on 24.11.2017. He also made payment a sum of Rs. 7172/- in cash at the residential address of agent Shyamal Chakroborty and opposite party no. 1(B) sent one confirmation e-mail regarding the booking including the attached file of payment receipt. That on 10.3.2018 the petitioner checked into the hotel at Gangtok and came to know that the food was not included in the package and during the check out on 11.3.2018 the opposite party no. 2 informed the petitioner that the additional car rent in respect of the side seeing in Lachen-Lachung had to be borne by the petitioner all along. According to this complainant as per previous discussion with opposite party no. 1(B) the petitioner was in complete dark about the payment of such car rent and he was forced to pay Rs.9000/- as car rent for Lachen-Lachung tour. After such payment the petitioner found that the concerned driver of the car was very much abusive in nature and defamatory on the other hand and it was also found that the home-stays at Lachen-Lachung were very much unhealthy, unhygienic and incorrigible. There was no proper supply of water and bed sheets and blankets were unable to wear. During the journey towards north Sikkim the concerned driver with an intention to hackle and harass the passengers of the car & choose to halt at the road side Dhaba for lunch. As a result the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.11,877/- for foods in the hands of concerned driver. After returning back to Gangtok from North Sikkim District the petitioner along with his wife checked into the hotel of opposite party no.2 as per previous discussion. There he found that the room was booked only for 13.3.2018 to 14.3.2018 and he had to check out on 14.3.2018. As the schedule train was on 15.3.2018 the complainant had to arrange one room in another hotel by paying a sum of Rs. 3300/-. The tour took Lachen-Lachung - Gangtok was nothing but to live in heel for the petitioner and his wife and let them heartbroken and defame. The complainant further stated that he filed the instant case for deficiency in service by the opposite parties in relation to Lachen-Lachung-Gangtok trip. He had communicated the agent Shyamal Chakroborty who lives in Chandannagore. After due consultation with the agent the petitioner made a payment of Rs. 12,828/- through SBI, Chinsurah PB Branch and a sum of Rs.7172/- in the mode of cash at the residential addresses of said Shyamal Chakroborty at Jyotir More, Chandannogore, Hooghly. As such the complainant filed the instant case within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. According to this complainant, he and his wife faced irreparable loss and defamation during the tenure of trip and the petitioner have to pay additional Rs.9000/- as car rent for spot site seeing in North Sikkim District and he had also paid a sum of Rs.11,877/- as food charges in the hand of concerned car driver appointed by opposite party no.2. According to this complainant, it is nothing but a conspiracy of the opposite parties to hackle and harass the petitioner to force him to pay more money during the Lachen-Lachung -Gangtok trip. He also mentioned that staying in the hotel of opposite party no. 2 was duly arranged as per the instruction of opposite party no. 1 and the petitioner was forced to check out from the said hotel without any prior information and during the period of check out the employees of opposite party no.2 misbehaved with them. After returning to his home town the petitioner intended to meet the opposite parties but his efforts went into vain. So, the petitioner compelled to file the instant case praying directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

            The opposite party no. 1 (B) in his argument stated that the opposite party no.1 is the travel and tourism company having its registered business place as mentioned therein and the business head conducting the online business. As such the transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 (B) was made at Kolkata. It is falsely alleged by the complainant that on 25.11.2017 the opposite party no.1 (B) made a call to the complainant making another payment of Rs. 7,172/- in the mode of cash to be paid at his aforementioned residential addresses and there was no such transactions made between them. Moreover the complainant has failed to file any scrap of paper before the Forum regarding his statement of alleged transaction. Opposite party no. 1(B) had arranged proper foods, lodging and car for travelling of the complainant and the payment of local guide and the payment of driver in respect of extra site seeing in North Sikkim were not included in the booking. The allegations about unhealthy and unhygienic food in Lachen-Lachung, the rude behavior of driver towards passengers, supply of water and bed sheets and blankets are hereby denied by the opposite party no. 1 (B). At the time of booking it has been specifically informed to the petitioner that the opposite party no.1 (B) had received the money from the travel of Lachen-Lachung including food (only breakfast and dinner), lodging and car rent and extra fare of car rent for extra site seeing will be borne by the petitioner. In reply of notice sent by the complainant the opposite party no. 1(B) stated that the opposite parties have compelled with the Lachen-Lachung tour package and provided cars and hotels as per the demand of the complainant and the complainant booked the hotel till 14.3.2018 and upto that day there was no dispute what the said hotel had done about extension of stay till 15.3.2018 and the complainant is not entitled to get the claim as mentioned in the prayer portion of the complaint petition as there were no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 (B) and the instant case liable to be dismissed with cost.

            It appears from the money receipt of opposite party no. 1 the complainant booked one deluxe double bed room @ Rs. 2214/- per day at Doma Residency. The tour of Luchen- Lachung package for 2 nights 3 days @ Rs. 4200/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.12,828/- in favour of Holiday Home India. The photocopy of letter dt. 24.11.2017 depicts the above information regarding payment and booking.  There is no dispute regarding the payment. But the dispute cropped up in between the parties when the opposite party failed to disburse his liability in respect tour conducted by them. It is the duty of the opposite party no.1 to look after the ease and comfort of the customers. The consumers relied upon him booked hotel and others. During the course of tour the complainant and his wife felt discomfort and after returning from the tour the complainant being aggrieved informed the matter to the opposite party but the said opposite party failed to entertain this complainant as a result the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.  During the course of proceeding the opposite party No.19(A) failed to contest the case by filing written version & evidence.  Only the opposite party No.1(B) being the agent of the opposite party No.1 (A) contested the case denying the allegations as leveled against him. He is a mere agent. He disburse his duties in the course of employment before opposite party 1(A). So if any liability arises then the opposite party No.1(A) is responsible for the same. The version of the opposite party No.1(A) was essential for proper adjudication of the case. The attitude of the opposite party No.1(A) is evading. Relying upon the evidence on affidavit of the complainant this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of opposite party no.1(A). So the deficiency of the opposite party No.1(A)  is established as such the complaint petition deserved to allowed with cost & compensation as quantified by this Forum.

order

 Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no. 120 of 2018  be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party No.1(A) with a litigation cost of  Rs.6000/-.

The opposite party No.1(A) is also directed to pay compensation to this complainant amounting to Rs.12,000/- within 45 days from the date of passing this order.

          Other opposite parties are exonerated from this proceeding. 

At the event of failure to comply with the order the said opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.