Order-11.
Date-08/09/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant contacted OP1 for a tour at Kerala with the members of his family. Complainant and his family selected an itinerary which included Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom. The complainant also paid the entire amount for the said tour to OP1. It is alleged by the complainant that from the very beginning of trip they had to face uncalled for situations, hardships, inconveniences and harassment one after another. The complainant and his wife are senior citizens and have health related problems. By an email of January 9, 2017 issued to the complainant with his desired itinerary changes, his booking in Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom for checking in on January 13, 2017 and checking out on January 14, 2017 were confirmed by the OPs. The OPs also confirmed such desired itinerary changes. The complainant had chosen the hotel Cocdobay Resort because all rooms have views of the lake in this resort. It is alleged that the complainant had to wait for half an hour for their car and driver when they arrived at Kochi Airport. The representative of OP on Kochi Airport did not even have the updated itinerary for their trip. For the time consumed in such exercise, the time for sightseeing had to be sacrificed. The driver was most unaccommodating and ill-behaved. Such a problem also was repeated at Munnar where the driver kept trying to alter the sightseeing plans of the complainant and his family to suit his own convenience. Moreover, when the complainant reached and tried to check in Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom on January 13, 2017 in terms of the confirmation issued by the OPs, they were informed that they did not have a confirmed reservation, despite the aforesaid email. The complainant had to make repeated calls to the customer cares of the OP after which they are accommodated in another hotel namely Backwater Ripples. The complainant states that they were made to shift to Cocobay Resort on January 14, 2017 with more stress on them, especially for his 82 year old sister. In addition, the problems with the car which had required servicing time of over an hour at Munnar, continued intermittently. The Air conditioner of the car did not work properly causing grave discomfort especially on the long trip from Kumarakom to Kovalam on January 15, 2017. The trip, as such, was ruined and turned more bitter on the return flight on January 18, 2017 when the complainant and his family were informed by Air India on checking in at Trivandrum on AI-584 that their luggage could not be booked through to Kolkata on the Jet Airways 9W 661. They were told that they would need to collect their luggage at Bengaluru and then check in to Jet Airways flight like new passengers. The complainant protested but his protest went in vain. It is alleged that it was never indicated beforehand to the complainant that the baggage could not be booked through on their itinerary. The complainant and his family were in for yet another surprise, when at Bengaluru, the Air India steward asked all passengers continuing to Kolkata to stay on board. The complainant had taken the later on flight after paying 5,000/- extra. It is alleged that the complainant and his family had to get 5 hours for new checking at Bengaluru. The complainant has prayed for decree for return of total principal sum of Rs.3,32,193/- along with other reliefs in terms of prayer in the complaint.
OP has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in fact and in law. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. It is stated that the complainant and the OP are covered by terms and condition agreed to them at the time of booking and as enumerated in the user agreement. It is also alleged that the allegation of CAB services not up to the mark is totally baseless because OP is just a facilitator and provides booking to its customer as per their needs and wants. It is also stated that booking was provided at Cocobay Resort. However, it was the hotelier who denied the booking in check in. However, OP2 called possible steps and provided alternate stay to the complainant which was accepted by the complainant to his satisfaction. Regarding check in by baggage issue, it is stated that the details of the said flight was shared by the OP with the complainant and well in advance for the date of travel. If the complainant had any issue with the same he should have raised on issue there and then. It is stated that the OP has performed all its duties and was held responsible for the mistakes which took place at the end of the local vendors or hotelier and airline and OP has prayed for dismissal of the case, against it.
Point for Decision
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We take up all the issues together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
We have perused the documents filed from the side of the complainant i.e. Xerox copy of invoice amounting to Rs.1,32,143/-, Xerox copies of emails regarding itinerary, Xerox copy of hotel confirmation booking, Xerox copy of emails on different dates.
The complainant has raised three major issues i.e. 1) The cab service was not upto the mark, 2) The booking at Cocobay Resort was not provided, 3) Through check-in baggage was not allowed on return flight.
Regarding Cab services it is stated by the OP that the local vendor is at fault and it creates no liability upon the OP because OP is just a facilitator and provides booking to its customer as per their needs and wants but the fact remains that the complainant actually faced the situation and the complainant along with his family members went to a tour to Kerala depending upon the OP being a service provider. So, we think that keeping the complainant and his family waiting or not attending them in time specially at the time of sightseeing is a deficiency on the part of the Cab service, its driver travel as well as OP being a service provider.
We now come to Cocobay Resort issue. By an email dated 09-01-2017 issued by the OP to the complainant reveals that booking in Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom for checking in January 13, 2017 and checking out on January 14, 2017 was confirmed. In the said confirmation it is clearly stated “your booking is confirmed” and he was not required to contact the hotel or makemytrip.com to confirm the same. The complainant as we find reached Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom on January 13, 2017 in terms of the confirmation issued by the OPs. The hotel persons informed the complainant that the booking has not been confirmed and the complainant had to make repeated calls to the customer care of the OP and after such repeated calls the OP accommodated in another hotel. It is alleged that there was no view of the lake from the room. We find that the complainant with his family members suffered problem and inconvenience due to change of accommodation and that could not up to the mark at Cocobay Resort when the booking was confirmed from the side of the OP. It is true that the OPs accommodated the complainant and his family another hotel, the alternate accommodation does not absolve the OP from their responsibility when they confirmed that Cocobera resort was booked for them. Regarding through checking of baggage we must say that when there is a hopping flight having two different Airlines, thorough check in baggage can never be allowed and this is a condition precedent of the Airlines. Moreover, it is permanent to note that the details of the said flight was shared by the OP to the complainant before hand and well in advance from the date of travel. If the complainant had any issue with the same he should have raised the issue there and then.
We find that the complainant has prayed for return of entire amount of tour but we find that the complainant along with members of his family visited the Kerala and enjoyed the trip, though not up to their full satisfaction as alleged. It is not the case that the OP did not arrange for the trip at all. There are some deficiencies in rendering services to the complainant and his family members. But we do not think that there has been so much quantified loss enunciated by the complainant in the complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances, we think since there has been some deficiency in service as discussed earlier on the part of the OP, OP is liable to pay some amount of compensation to the complainant.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of this order.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant contacted OP1 for a tour at Kerala with the members of his family. Complainant and his family selected an itinerary which included Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom. The complainant also paid the entire amount for the said tour to OP1. It is alleged by the complainant that from the very beginning of trip they had to face uncalled for situations, hardships, inconveniences and harassment one after another. The complainant and his wife are senior citizens and have health related problems. By an email of January 9, 2017 issued to the complainant with his desired itinerary changes, his booking in Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom for checking in on January 13, 2017 and checking out on January 14, 2017 were confirmed by the OPs. The OPs also confirmed such desired itinerary changes. The complainant had chosen the hotel Cocdobay Resort because all rooms have views of the lake in this resort. It is alleged that the complainant had to wait for half an hour for their car and driver when they arrived at Kochi Airport. The representative of OP on Kochi Airport did not even have the updated itinerary for their trip. For the time consumed in such exercise, the time for sightseeing had to be sacrificed. The driver was most unaccommodating and ill-behaved. Such a problem also was repeated at Munnar where the driver kept trying to alter the sightseeing plans of the complainant and his family to suit his own convenience. Moreover, when the complainant reached and tried to check in Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom on January 13, 2017 in terms of the confirmation issued by the OPs, they were informed that they did not have a confirmed reservation, despite the aforesaid email. The complainant had to make repeated calls to the customer cares of the OP after which they are accommodated in another hotel namely Backwater Ripples. The complainant states that they were made to shift to Cocobay Resort on January 14, 2017 with more stress on them, especially for his 82 year old sister. In addition, the problems with the car which had required servicing time of over an hour at Munnar, continued intermittently. The Air conditioner of the car did not work properly causing grave discomfort especially on the long trip from Kumarakom to Kovalam on January 15, 2017. The trip, as such, was ruined and turned more bitter on the return flight on January 18, 2017 when the complainant and his family were informed by Air India on checking in at Trivandrum on AI-584 that their luggage could not be booked through to Kolkata on the Jet Airways 9W 661. They were told that they would need to collect their luggage at Bengaluru and then check in to Jet Airways flight like new passengers. The complainant protested but his protest went in vain. It is alleged that it was never indicated beforehand to the complainant that the baggage could not be booked through on their itinerary. The complainant and his family were in for yet another surprise, when at Bengaluru, the Air India steward asked all passengers continuing to Kolkata to stay on board. The complainant had taken the later on flight after paying 5,000/- extra. It is alleged that the complainant and his family had to get 5 hours for new checking at Bengaluru. The complainant has prayed for decree for return of total principal sum of Rs.3,32,193/- along with other reliefs in terms of prayer in the complaint.
OP has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in fact and in law. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. It is stated that the complainant and the OP are covered by terms and condition agreed to them at the time of booking and as enumerated in the user agreement. It is also alleged that the allegation of CAB services not up to the mark is totally baseless because OP is just a facilitator and provides booking to its customer as per their needs and wants. It is also stated that booking was provided at Cocobay Resort. However, it was the hotelier who denied the booking in check in. However, OP2 called possible steps and provided alternate stay to the complainant which was accepted by the complainant to his satisfaction. Regarding check in by baggage issue, it is stated that the details of the said flight was shared by the OP with the complainant and well in advance for the date of travel. If the complainant had any issue with the same he should have raised on issue there and then. It is stated that the OP has performed all its duties and was held responsible for the mistakes which took place at the end of the local vendors or hotelier and airline and OP has prayed for dismissal of the case, against it.
Point for Decision
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We take up all the issues together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
We have perused the documents filed from the side of the complainant i.e. Xerox copy of invoice amounting to Rs.1,32,143/-, Xerox copies of emails regarding itinerary, Xerox copy of hotel confirmation booking, Xerox copy of emails on different dates.
The complainant has raised three major issues i.e. 1) The cab service was not upto the mark, 2) The booking at Cocobay Resort was not provided, 3) Through check-in baggage was not allowed on return flight.
Regarding Cab services it is stated by the OP that the local vendor is at fault and it creates no liability upon the OP because OP is just a facilitator and provides booking to its customer as per their needs and wants but the fact remains that the complainant actually faced the situation and the complainant along with his family members went to a tour to Kerala depending upon the OP being a service provider. So, we think that keeping the complainant and his family waiting or not attending them in time specially at the time of sightseeing is a deficiency on the part of the Cab service, its driver travel as well as OP being a service provider.
We now come to Cocobay Resort issue. By an email dated 09-01-2017 issued by the OP to the complainant reveals that booking in Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom for checking in January 13, 2017 and checking out on January 14, 2017 was confirmed. In the said confirmation it is clearly stated “your booking is confirmed” and he was not required to contact the hotel or makemytrip.com to confirm the same. The complainant as we find reached Cocobay Resort, Kumarakom on January 13, 2017 in terms of the confirmation issued by the OPs. The hotel persons informed the complainant that the booking has not been confirmed and the complainant had to make repeated calls to the customer care of the OP and after such repeated calls the OP accommodated in another hotel. It is alleged that there was no view of the lake from the room. We find that the complainant with his family members suffered problem and inconvenience due to change of accommodation and that could not up to the mark at Cocobay Resort when the booking was confirmed from the side of the OP. It is true that the OPs accommodated the complainant and his family another hotel, the alternate accommodation does not absolve the OP from their responsibility when they confirmed that Cocobera resort was booked for them. Regarding through checking of baggage we must say that when there is a hopping flight having two different Airlines, thorough check in baggage can never be allowed and this is a condition precedent of the Airlines. Moreover, it is permanent to note that the details of the said flight was shared by the OP to the complainant before hand and well in advance from the date of travel. If the complainant had any issue with the same he should have raised the issue there and then.
We find that the complainant has prayed for return of entire amount of tour but we find that the complainant along with members of his family visited the Kerala and enjoyed the trip, though not up to their full satisfaction as alleged. It is not the case that the OP did not arrange for the trip at all. There are some deficiencies in rendering services to the complainant and his family members. But we do not think that there has been so much quantified loss enunciated by the complainant in the complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances, we think since there has been some deficiency in service as discussed earlier on the part of the OP, OP is liable to pay some amount of compensation to the complainant.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of this order.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
