IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 223/18 (filed on 24/10/2018)
Petitioner : Baburaj K.
Aswathi Bhavan,
Kezhuvankulam P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. M.C. Suresh)
Vs.
Opposite Party : The Deputy General Manager
Tourism, IRCTC,
Salih Arcade, 1st Floor,
40/8194, Convent Road,
Kochi – 682 035.
(Adv. Georgekutty C.A.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The crux of the complaint is as follows.
The complainant and his friends George Augustine and Tomichan Joseph booked three tickets in Bharat Darshan on 07/08/2018 for a tour package organised by the opposite party named Onam Vacation Special. The booking was effected through online from Kottayam and complainant paid total Rs.34,020 towards 3 seats and the payment was made from Kottayam through online. The opposite party accepted the amount and issued package details. The tour was scheduled to start from Kottayam on 21/08/2018 by the end of the 2nd week of August there was a heavy rain in Kerala and the complainant was in Pala town and nearby places were affected by flood and by16/08/2018 the entire area was immersed in water affecting vehicular traffic. The complainant was held up at Pala and found that it was difficult to reach at Kottayam on 21/08/2018. Due to his inability to reach Kottayam due to the flood the complainant cancelled the ticket on 16/08/2018. His friends who were able to reach Kottayam on the boarding date decided to continue the journey with the package. The opposite party accepted the cancellation and refunded Rs.5670/- which is the 50% of the ticket amount as per the conditions for cancellation.
Subsequently the complainant came to know that the tour programme itself was cancelled due to the flood in Kerala and refunded the full amount to all the passengers. The complainant’s friend also got full amount refunded. Since the cancellation of the ticket by the complainant and the cancellation of the programme by the opposite party was due to same reason, the complainant demanded refund of the balance amount from the opposite party by issuing lawyers notice. The complainant cancelled ticket banafidely believing that the opposite party would continue with the tour programme. The facts and circumstances clearly shows that the opposite party was intending to cancel the programme due to the flood purposefully suppressed the said facts from the complainant and accepted the cancellation and retained 50% amount from the complainant for undue enrichment and subsequently cancelled the programme itself and refunded the full amount to all other passengers. Since the opposite party had cancelled the programme for the same reason forcing the complainant to cancel the ticket he ought to have refunded the entire amount to the complainant. Retaining the 50% as cancellation charge from the complainant is not justified and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party which causes financial loss and mental agony and sufferings to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.5670 from the opposite party along with interest and compensation for sufferings. Hence the complaint.
Upon notice from the Forum opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version.
The complainant booked the ticket over tour package, which was scheduled to start on21/08/2018 and the boarding place was Kottayam railway station. Before booking the tour package, the details features and all the relevant documents regarding the tour, its charges, cancellation charges etc. and its effects, refund of amount etc. were made known to the complainant. Being fully convinced of such things, the complainant booked the ticket. As per the norms if the cancellation is done by the party before 4-7 days (excluding departure date) 50% of the package cost is the cancellation charges due to the opposite parties. The complainant readily accepted the amount without any objection. The opposite party on operational reason cancel the tour programme on 18/08/18, as there was breachs in railway tracks at that time, which could not be replied easily. As cancellation of ticket was made by the complainant much before the cancellation of the trip by the opposite party, the cancellation charges applied and the refund was given to the complainant as per the refund rules in force. The complainant’s friends got the full amount refunded as their booking was alive at the time when the opposite party cancelled the tour, owing to operational reasons. Having received the refund amount, fully knowing the rules in force and also the cancellation policy the complainant is estopped from claiming the amount deducted by the opposite party. The lawyers notice is an afterthought. At the time of cancellation of ticket there was no request from the complainant for any waiver of charges. The opposite party never does anything for undue enrichment. The opposite party gives refund of full amount to those passengers whose status was alive when IRCTC had cancelled the tour for operational reasons. There is no nexes between the cancellation by the complainant and the cancellation of tour. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as the complainant was fully aware of the conditions of the service, cancellation charges and other related matters. The full refund being offered for cancellation of the tour on operational reasons is a regular practice and not new. There is no financial loss, mental agony sufferings etc. to the complainant as alleged. There is no cause of action for the complaint. The present complaint is filed only on an experimental basis. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed.
In order to prove his case, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A8 were marked. One Mr. Sam Joseph, Deputy General Manager of Tourism, IRCTC filed proof affidavit and
Ext.B1was marked from the side of opposite party.
On going through the complaint, version and evidence on record we would consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite party?
- If so, what are reliefs and cost?
Point Nos.1 and 2
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
The complainant and his friends namely George Augustine and Tomichan Joseph booked 3 tickets in Bharat Darshan on 07/08/2018 for a tour package organised by the opposite party named as Onam Vacation Special, which was scheduled on 21/08/2018 from Kottayam railway station. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.24,020 towards charges of three seats and payment for the same. The complainant pleaded that from 16/08/2018 to 21/08/2018 there was an unpredicted heavy rain in Kerala and he was forced to cancel the ticket anticipating that the opposite party would continue with the tour package. Ext.A2 voucher proves that only 50% of the ticket charge is refunded to the complainant. The complainant further pleaded that his friends who did not cancel the tickets were refunded with the full amount.. The specific case of the complainant is that cancellation of ticket by him and the tour package by the opposite party was due to the same reason and the complainant is entitled to get the full amount refunded. In order to substantiate his case the complainant produced Ext.A4 which is a print out of SMS message. In Ext.A4 it is stated that due to flood in Kerala IRCTC cancelled the tour programme of Onam Special Bharath Darshan departure Ex Madurai on 21/08/2018. Though the complainant produced Ext.A4 message dtd.19/08/2018 neither in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit he did not deposed the phone number on which the sms message has been received. On the other hand the opposite party contented that the tour programme was cancelled on operational reason on 18/08/2018 as there was breaches in the railway tracks at that time which could not be remedied easily. The opposite party further pleaded that the complainant cancelled the ticket on 16/08/2018 and the cancellation was not due to the flood as alleged. Ext.B1 is none other than Ext.A1. On perusal of Ext.A1 and B1, we can find that the passenger who cancel the ticket before 4-7 days (excluding the departure date) 50% of the package is the cancellation charge. It is admitted by the complainant that he cancel the ticket on 16/08/2018 which is 5 days before the departure date. On perusal of records and evidence we find that he cancelled the ticket in anticipation that the tour programme would continue by the opposite party on 21/08/2018 and the booking of the ticket by the complainant was not alive on 19/08/2018 the date on which the opposite party cancelled the tour programme due to the operational reasons. So we are of the opinion that the opposite party legitimately deducted the cancellation charge. The complainant whose booking was not alive is not a consumer of the opposite party on 19/08/2018 the date on which he opposite party cancelled the tour programme. Therefore we are in the opinion that compliant is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 03rd day of June, 2020
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of package transaction details
A2 : Copy of refund voucher showing the refund is produced
A3 : Copy of package transation details
A4 : Certification dtd.16/10/19 under Section 65B of the Evidence Act
A5 : Copy of lawyers notice04/09/18
A6 : Postal receipt
A7 : Postal AD card
A8 : copy of online edition of the Mathrubhoomi daily dtd.17/08/18
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
B1 : Package transaction details
By Order
Senior Superintendent
