Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/323/2015

Sunil Sardana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kuoni Travel India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/323/2015
Date of Institution	:	26/05/2015
Date of Decision	:	11/04/2016

 

 

1.     Sunil Sardana r/o # 423, Sector 16, Panchkula.

2.     Lalita Sardana w/o Sunil Sardana r/o #  423, Sector-16, Panchkula.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

Kuoni Travel India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147-148, Level 1^st, Above L.G. Showroom, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Krishan M. Vohra, Proxy counsel for Sh. Sumeet Goel, Counsel for OP.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Sunil Sardana and Smt. Lalita Sardana, complainants have filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Kuoni Travel India Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that they booked a package tour from the OP for Hong Kong and Macau costing Rs.80,224/- per person plus 3.09% service tax.  The complainants paid Rs.42,000/- on 11.6.2013 and Rs.50,000/- on 13.6.2013 vide receipts (C-2 & C-3) and they were further told to deposit Rs.81,100/-.  The complainants informed the OP that as per quotation dated 24.5.2013 (C-1) the total cost per person was Rs.82,703/- and for two persons it was to be Rs.1,65,406/-, out of which Rs.92,000/- had already been paid, and balance demand should have been Rs.73,406/- and not Rs.81,100/-.  The complainants were told that due to appreciation in dollar rate, the amount had to be paid.  Though the dollar rate as on 14.6.2013 was Rs.57.54, the balance was charged @ Rs.60/-. The complainants left with no other option paid the excess amount of Rs.7,694/- and the receipt of Rs.81,100/- (C-4) was issued.

                According to the complainants, even after charging excess amount, OP issued air tickets just three days prior to departure in which the name of complainant No.2 was mentioned as Mr. Lalita Sardana instead of Mrs./Ms. Lalita Sardana. The OP failed to rectify the error, but, assured that they had given special instructions to the airline as an addendum for change of title from Mr. Sardana/Lalita to Mrs. Sardana/Lalita vide C-6. The complainants have contended that throughout the tour of one week, they were under stress and they were detained and taken to a separate enclosure at the Hong Kong airport and it took at least one hour to convince the security staff that the OP had sent an addendum. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In its written reply, the OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try or entertain the complaint. It has been denied that the tour was to cost at a static price of Rs.80,224/-. It has been stated that the complainants were well aware of the booking terms and conditions which clearly stated that the tour prices were subject to Rate of Exchange.  It has been denied that e-mail (Annexure C-1) was an offer document by the OP.  It has also been denied that there was any error on the part of the OP causing misprint of salutation of Mrs. Lalita Sardana as Mr. Lalita Sardana. It has been contended that the tickets were issued by respective airlines and the OP has no role to play whatsoever in issuance of the tickets. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In their rejoinder, the complainants have controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated their own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         First of all, in view of the objection taken by the OP, we proceed to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is evident from all the receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-4) that it was the OP only who arranged the trip for the complainants and accepted the whole amount as agreed upon only at Chandigarh. Since a part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, there is no merit in the plea of the OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction and the same is rejected.
7.         It is an admitted fact of both the parties that the tickets of the complainants were booked and issued by the OP for the trip for Hong Kong and Macau.  Admittedly, the name of complainant No.2 ‘Mrs. Lalita Sardana’ was wrongly mentioned over the air ticket (Annexure C-5) as ‘Mr. Lalita Sardana’ whereas the same was correctly written on the receipts (Annexure C-2 to C-4).  Even the boarding pass (Annexure C-7) was also issued in the wrong name of ‘Mr. Lalita Sardana’. The main allegation of the complainants is that just because of aforementioned reason, they were denied entry at Delhi airport and the same thing happened at the Hong Kong airport also.  Annexure C-6 is a copy of the special instructions issued to the airline by the OP only as an addendum for change of name from ‘Mr. Lalita Sardana’ to ‘Mrs. Lalita Sardana’.  It is also an admitted fact that the name of complainant No.2 was corrected by the airline on the request of the OP only. 
8.         So far as the allegation of complainants with regard to overcharging on the pretext of appreciation of the rate of dollar is concerned, it is important to note that the complainants booked the tickets with the OP after reading and understanding the booking terms and conditions, tour itinerary and the tour price list. Further, the OP has rightly pleaded that due to fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate, which are very dynamic and change on a day to day basis and are beyond anybody’s control, the foreign exchange rate prevalent on the date of final payment becomes applicable to a passenger. Therefore, we are of the view that the OP cannot be held liable for overcharging. 
9.         It is clear from the receipts of payment as well as the tickets that there was no direct relationship between the complainants and the airline.  It is the OP only who charged money from the complainants and got tickets issued in their names.  Hence, it was the responsibility of the OP only to get the entire work done in a proper manner, but, due to its negligence somehow the name of complainant No.2 was wrongly written over the tickets due to which the complainants had to give excuses for no fault on their part at the Delhi airport as well as at a foreign land at Hong Kong. It is also admitted case of the OP that it was on its instructions only, the airline permitted the complainants to enter the airport.  Therefore, the act of the OP in not getting the proper air tickets issued with mention of correct name of complainant No.2 points out its negligence and deficiency in service which certainly caused immense physical and mental harassment to the complainant.
10.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants;

(ii)    To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 

11.         This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/04/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member