Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 206/31.10.2018
Nirmal Singh son of Shri Bal Kishan
R/o House no.24/02, PO Nakrana, Kallri,
Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh -174310
Also at: C-11/46 Tilak Lane, N. Delhi 110001 …Complainant
Versus
OP. The Director, LTC Yatra.com, 414, 4th floor, Pratap Bhawan,
5 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 31.10.2018
Coram: Date of Order: 03 08.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member - Female
FINAL ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
It is scheduled today for order (item no.7)
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant has grievances of deficiency of services and of unfair trade practice against OP that he took holiday package for Srinagar from OP and had paid total agreed amount of Rs. 1,03,445/- inclusive of all the expenses, however, on the second day of tour, single cab was not provided to the family members but the complainant’s mother and daughter were taken to an unkown place in separate cab without the permission of complainant and the complainant was to follow and chase them, which spoiled the entire tour as the time exhausted to join them in night ultimately in the hotel. That is why the complaint for return of package of amount of Rs. 1,03,445/-, compensation of Rs. 4 lakh in lieu of mental agony, harassment, torture and financial losses besides litigation expenses of Rs. 55,000/- and costs.
1.2. The complaint was opposed by the OP that it had rendered services just to the extent of air tickets, which costs them Rs. 30,000/-, the OP has no concern with other services nor it had charged nor there was occasion for deficiency of services or of unfair trade practice. The other services was availed by the complainant from someone else. The services of air tickets were completely provided by the OP.
2.1. (Case of complainant) –The complainant in his complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleges that on 02.05.2018 he took holiday package for Srinagar and for nearby places for period 01.06.2018 to 05.06.2018 for tour package of five people, it was finalized for Rs. 1,03,445/- (which includes air fare including return, hotel stay, cab charges). On 02.05.2018 an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by cash against receipt no. 1424. The remaining amount of Rs. 73,445/- was paid subsequently by a cheque no. 263482 to the OP. The journey was undertaken.
2.2. On second day of the trip, the cab services to be provided for the complainant and his family was given on sharing basis instead of separate cab, which was protested by the complainant but the representative of hotel, instead of apologetic, refused to arrange service of the private cab. Therefore, the complainant and his family were forced to travel in two cabs to reach the destination, which was causing mental agony to the entire family. The cab driver in which mother and daughter of complainant were sitting, the driver took that cab without the permission of complainant and when complainant enquired the driver, the complainant was asked to take another cab to reach excursion point Gagangate. The complainant was left with no option but to call the hotel staff to arrange cab services, however, it was apprised that complainant’s mother and daughter were taken to some unknown place at a distance of 60 kms away from Gagangate. The complainant had arranged another cab to reach them vis-à-vis the OP was called and apprised them entire episode but there was no heed to resolve the issue, but asked to do needful at his own level. The OP failed to initiate any action despite all information.
2.3 The conduct of the OP shows that entire amount was taken in advance from complainant for the package but with intention from the inception was not to provide services as promised. The complainant approached the OP personally and also contacted on telephones to return the amount but no result. Lastly, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.07.2018 to return the entire amount taken because of deficiency of services but OP did not comply it. That is why the complaint.
2.4 The complaint is accompanied with copies of – legal notice, complaint dated 25.06.2018 to Director, Tourism, Srinagar (J&K), cash receipt, statement of bank account, ticket booking in spice-jet and adhaar card. The complainant also filed certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect track report of speed post generated and other material uploaded.
3.1 (Case of OP) – The OP opposed all the allegations against it in the complaint. The complainant is neither a consumer nor the present Consumer Fora has jurisdiction. The OP is just an agent in rendering travel related services and its main business is of air ticketing exclusively. The complainant had approached to OP for booking of air tickets for J & K and also sought advice on the itinerary, which was shared with the complainant. The OP never booked holiday package for Srinagar of complainant for five people but air tickets was booked for five passengers against receipt of Rs. 30,000/- issued on 02.05.2018. The OP had shared experience of journey to the complainant.
The other services were taken from someone else by the complainant for which complainant has no concern. Moreover, the OP never proposed any other service provider to the complainant. Consequently, neither there is any fraud or unfair trade practice or deficiency on his part. The legal notice dated 05.07.2018 was replied by the OP but complainant suppressed the same. The complaint is without cause of action and it is also not maintainable. It is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. The written statement is accompanied with reply (to legal notice) with courier receipt.
4.1 (Evidence of parties) - The complainant led his evidence by filing detailed affidavit, duly supported by the record filed with the pleading.
4.2. OP failed to lead its evidence despite ample opportunity inclusive of last opportunity, consequently OP’s evidence was closed on 14.09.2023.
5. (Final hearing) - Both the sides filed their respective written arguments. The parties were also given opportunities to make oral submissions, Shri Vivekanand Jha, Advocate for complainant and Shri Nitin Mittal, Advocate for OP presented their respective submissions.
6.1 (Findings)- The rival contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record inclusive of evidence led by the complainant. During the course of submission, on the one side the complainant has emphasized that it is admitted case of OP of receipt of amount but there is no evidence by the OP to prove its defence. On the other side the case of OP is receipt of amount of Rs.30,000/- is admitted, this amount was received for air tickets against receipt but no other amount. The onus is on the complainant to prove his case.
6.2. The complainant took objection on law point that the complainant is not a consumer, but without any substance, as to how he is not consumer, when he had approached the OP for tour purposes.
The OP also took another objection that the present Consumer Fora lacks jurisdiction, but it has not been substantiated except reply in para 13 that no cause of action arisen within the area of jurisdiction. However, the business office of OP [as mentioned in array of parties] is located within the area of jurisdiction of this Commission. Thus, the complaint has been filed in competent Forum. Accordingly, both the objections are disposed off against the OP.
6.3 After taking into account stock of all materials and evidence led on behalf of complainant, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complainant has proved receipt of Rs. 30,000/- dated 02.05.2018 and also other material showing on the website of OP the specific tour package for Srinagar LTC package alongwith the terms and conditions, the same has not been challenged by the OP for want of leading contrary evidence. The material provided on website for various tour package is of OP under its domain name. Therefore, the OP had received amount of Rs. 30,000/- against receipt. OP explains in written statement that abbreviation SxR package in receipt stands for Srinagar air ticking.
(ii) The complainant has also proved payment information for a total amount of Rs. 1,03,445/-, the same amount was paid by the complainant by way of cash of Rs. 30,000/- (for which receipt dated 02.05.2018 was issued) and in the statement of bank account the other payment of Rs. 73,445/- is showing in favour of Travel Studios but the OP is LTC Yatra.com and not Travel Studios vis-à-vis the total amount is shown in the payment information, which reflects that the OP and Travel Studios are in the confidence of each other.
The complainant has not given any explanation that why cheque was issued to Travel Studio and not to the OP.
(iii) The prime allegations of deficiency of services pertain to second day of tour when the cab driver took the complainant’s mother and daughter at some unknown place, which was later discovered to be 60 km away from the destination Gagangate, the complainant had to arrange another cab. The tour could not be performed and it was spoiled.
The complainant has also proved his report to Director, Tourism (J&K) against harassment on tour package by yatra.com. The contents of complaint narrates that there was dispute of complainant with the horsemen; thence three horsemen were detained/arrested by the police. The complainant asked the cab driver to wait for 10 minute while issue of horsemen was being looked into by the police, but on return to the spot, the driver was not present, he took the complainant’s daughter and mother to another place which was 60 km away from destination Gagangate.
There is material in consistency in the allegations projected in the complaint that the five family members of the complainant were forced to be accommodated into different cabs but in the police report entirely different circumstances are suggested. As appearing the complainant was in or near the police station but he asked the family members remain in the cab, which had not waited for long. The complainant also projected that the cab had reached 60 km away from the destination, is it possible that he returned in about 10 minutes but the cab was 60 km away that too in valley area.
(iv) Since the OP was paid amount of air tickets of Rs. 30,000/- but there is no other receipt of payment tendered to OP. The other amount paid by the complainant was by way of cheque and the cheque was honoured by Travel Studios, it means the cheque was issued in favour of payee Travel Studios, a different entity and service provider.
(v) The complainant has not given detail of other days of his package but just confining to 2nd day of tour.
(vi) There is no proof of that those services were to be provided by the OP, therefore, for want of proof thereof on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, there is no proof of deficiency of services or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
In view of above, complainant could not prove the complaint as set-up in the complaint. The complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Announced on this 3nd day of August 2024 [श्र!वण 12, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[ijs100]
