Delhi

North

CC/308/2024

MUKESH MOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAGNUM TOURS AND TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEPAISH TANGORIYA

15 Jul 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- 1 (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe-II Building,Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 308/2024

Date of filing: 25.06.2024

Date of order: 15.07.2024

In the matter of

Mr. Mukesh Mohan

S/o Shri Gyan Prakash Gupta,

T-06-05-04, National Highway 24,

Near Akshardham Temple,

Common Wealth Games Village,

Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi,

Delhi-110092                                                          …       Complainant

VERSUS

Magnum Tours & Travels Private Limited

Registered office at:

1475 Krishna Lodge,

Moti Cinema Compound, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006                                                          …     Opposite Party No.1

 

Ms. Vandana Chopra,

Director, Magnum Tours & Travels Private Limited

Having office at 1475 Krishna Lodge,

Moti Cinema Compound, Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                          …     Opposite Party No.2

 

Ms. Shivya Chopra

Director, Magnum Tours & Travels Private Limited

Having office at 1475 Krishna Lodge,

Moti Cinema Compound, Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                          …     Opposite Party No.3

 

Mr. Rishabh Chopra

Director, Magnum Tours & Travels Private Limited

Having office at 1475 Krishna Lodge,

Moti Cinema Compound, Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                          …     Opposite Party No.4

 

Mr. Rahul Chopra

Director, Magnum Tours & Travels Private Limited

Having office at 1475 Krishna Lodge,

Moti Cinema Compound, Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                          …     Opposite Party No.5

 

ORDER

15.07.2024

 

Present: Complainant in person through VC

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged deficiency of service by M/s Magnum Tours & Travels Private Limited (OP-1 herein) and its Directors namely Ms Vandana Chopra (OP-2 herein), Ms Shivya Chopra (OP-3 herein), Mr Rishabh Chopra (OP-4 herein) and Mr. Rahul Chopra (OP-5 herein).
2. The Complainant herein, has booked a travel package including air travels and hotel bookings for the family vacation for five adults and two infants. The said trip was scheduled from 22.05.2024 to 26.05.2024 (both days included). The Complainant and his family members were scheduled to visit Kashmir during the vacation. The grievance of the Complainant is that the OPs did not fulfil the commitments as promised by them for the vacation. The Complainant has pleaded following deficiencies in the service provided by the OPs.
   1. Despite specific instructions to provide top-end category of rooms in the hotels, the OPs booked the rooms in the base category.
   2. Despite specific instruction of having inter-connected rooms in the hotel, the rooms so booked by the OPs were not inter-connected.
   3. The invoices issued by the OPs prima facie seem to be forged and fabricated.
   4. Despite specific request to the OPs that arrangements should be made for late check-out, the OPs did not take any steps to facilitate late check-out.
   5. The OPs did not provide the hotel vouchers with the details of rom tariffs, service charges etc. for the hotel bookings.
3. As the documents filed along with the complaints were prima facie not sufficient to substantiate the claims of the Complainant, on the first date of hearing (28.06.2024), Ld. Advocate for the Complainant sought an adjournment to enable him to file additional documents. On the next date of hearing (05.07.2024), the Complainant moved an application, which is numbered as MA No. 104/2024. Although new documents were filed along with this application, but the instead of praying for taking on record new documents, prayer in the complaint was reiterated in this application. On this second date, the adjournment was again sought for leading arguments on admissibility of the complaint. Thereafter the matter was listed on 08.07.2024, on which date, the Complainant argued himself, after Ld. Advocate for the Complainant withdrew his Vakalatnama. The Complainant has also filed certain judgments with his written submissions. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and have gone through the pleadings, documents on record, written submissions and the judgments so filed.
4. It has been argued by the Complainant that the promises made by the OPs and the deficiencies can be adjudicated by this Commission. He has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Hello Travel vs Harish C Jain [2020 (1) CPR 736], in which Hon’ble National Commission, while dealing with the deficiency by the travel agent in delivering the promised arrangements, has held the travel agency liable for adopting unfair trade practice and upheld order of the District Commission and State Commission in granting the relief so granted to the Complainant therein. In the said judgment, the important aspect was that the Complainant was able to substantiate his claims against the OPs therein through documentary evidences. There were correspondences and documents on record in support of the claim of the Complainant.
5. On our enquiry that whether there is any communication between the Complainant and the OPs regarding the requirements and alleged deficiency, it is stated that most of the communications were done telephonically. There is one communication between the Complainant and the through WhatsApp, which has been filed with the MA/104/2024.We have perused the WhatsApp communication, but the same does not substantiate the deficiency on part of OPs as alleged by the Complainant. There is no written communication establishing the promise. Further there is no communication establishing that the Complainant has lodged any complaint with the OPs regarding any deficiency meted out by the hotels. As a matter of fact, the Complainant has not been able to substantiate the fact that the rooms so provided by the respective hotels were not of “top category” but of “base category”. The details of hotel rooms so provided to the Complainant by the respective hotels have also not been provided in the entire complaint. Further there is nothing on record to suggest that the rooms were not inter connected and any complaint to this regard was ever made. Hence, despite the fact that the Hello Travel (supra) judgment is relied on by the Complainant, the said judgment would not help the Complainant for the simple reason that in Hello Travels (supra) case, all allegations were duly substantiated by documentary evidences, which are lacking in the case in hand.
6. During arguments, the Complainant also argued that oral commitment constitutes an agreement. It is indeed settled law that oral communications and agreements are valid. However, such oral agreement can only be established by way of leading detailed evidences including examination and cross examination of witnesses. But while examining the consumer dispute, the Consumer Commission is not required to delve into detailed examination of evidences including examination and cross examination of the witnesses. For such details examination of evidences, appropriate remedy available with the Complainant is to move to a civil court and file an appropriate civil suit. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [(2002) 2 SCC 1], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where the detailed evidences are required to be led, Consumer Commissions are not appropriate forum to adjudicate the disputes. The Consumer Commissions can hear and dispose of the disputes in summary fashion and not by way of detailed examination of evidences.
7. Accordingly, for the reason that for adjudication of this complaint, detailed examination of evidences including examination and cross examination of the witnesses is necessary and this complaint cannot be decided in summary fashion, we are not entertaining this complaint. Therefore, complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. However, we grant liberty to the Complainant to approach the civil court of appropriate jurisdiction, if so advised, for Redressal of his grievances. Needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and if the Complainant approaches the civil court raising his grievances as raised in this complaint, the civil court would decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
8. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member