JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainants booked a Europe tour with the petitioner M/s Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. When they reached Italy, their passports were stolen from the possession in a place called Arezzo City. As a result, they had to discontinue the further trip and stay in Italy till they were able to return to India, on new ticket arranged by the petitioner. The complainants however, were charged for the said tickets for return to India. Being aggrieved, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to them. Their primary grievance was that the petitioner did not provide due assistance to them when their passports were stolen and also charged for the return ticket to India though they had already paid for the entire tour including return to India. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which denied any deficiency on its part in rendering services to the complainants. It was stated in the reply filed by the petitioner that the complainants were themselves to blame for losing their passports. It was also their case in the reply filed before the District Forum that they had arranged hotel accommodation for the complainants till they were able to return to India. It is however, an admitted position that the cost of return travel to India was charged from the complainants. The case of the petitioner in this regard is that they had charged only the actual cost from the complainants and they did not get any refund from the airlines since the whole tour had already been pre-paid by them. 3. The District Forum having partly allowed the Consumer Complaint and having directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,008/- to the complainants alongwith compensation to both of them at Rs.25,000/- each, both the parties approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 30.10.2012, the State Commission reduced the compensation awarded to the complainants. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission. 4. The only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner company was deficient in rendering services to the complainants at the place where the passports of the complainants were stolen from their possession. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants is that no assistance was provided to the complainants since no one accompanied them to the Police Station and no transport upto the Police Station was arranged for them though the residents of that place were hardly conversant with English language. This is also the grievance of the complainants that the petitioner charged Rs.35,000/- each from both of them towards the cost of return ticket to India. 5. Admittedly, the passports were in the possession of the complainants when they were in Italy. The petitioner therefore, cannot be said in any manner, responsible for the loss of the passports. There was no contractual obligation on the part of the petitioner to either depute its representative to accompany the complainants to the Police Station or to arrange the transport for their travel to the Police Station. The complainants having themselves lost their passports, were required to incur the said expenditure, the passports having been lost on account of their own negligence. As far as the cost of the return tickets is concerned, the petitioner having charged actual fare from the complainants, the return tickets booked by the petitioner for the entire tour having already been paid in advance, and no refund having been paid by the airlines on account of the complainants not returning on the tickets which the petitioner had initially booked for them, the petitioner, in my opinion, was fully justified in recovering the cost of the tickets from the complainants. In fact, the petitioner accommodated the complainants in a hotel at the place where the passports were stolen till they were able to board the flight to India. Therefore, no case of deficiency on the part of the petitioner is made out. As a result, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Consumer Complaints are consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. However, this is subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit stating therein that no amount at all was returned to it by the airlines in respect of the tickets which it had initially booked for the complainants, to the extent the said tickets had remained unutilized. If no affidavit is filed, the petitioner shall refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date on which the said amount was paid till the date of its refund. If the affidavit in compliance of this order is filed and it transpires from the said affidavit that some amount was refunded to the petitioner by the airlines on account of the tickets initially booked for the complainants having remained partly unutilized, the petitioner shall refund the said amount to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which the said amount was refunded to the petitioner till the date on which it is paid to the complainants. 6. On the petitioner complying with this direction, the amount which it had deposited with this Commission, be returned to it, alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount. The affidavit in terms of this order shall be filed within four weeks from today. |
