Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/339

Pardeep Dhingra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip India - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen K. Kataria

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

FIRST  ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

              First Appeal No.339 of 2011

                                                     

                                                           Date of Institution :   21.02.2011

                                                           Date of decision  :     05.02.2015

 

Pardeep Dhingra s/o Sh. Amrit Lal Dhingra c/o M/s. Sahil Builders, Sahit Hutt, Street No.2, Gill Road, Moga, District Moga.

.....Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Make My Trip India Private Limited, 103, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,       Gurgaon-122016, Haryana.

2.      Goyal Travels & Tours Private Limited, Court Road, Moga       through its Managing Director/Director/Secretary.

.....Respondents/Opposite Parties

          First Appeal against the order dated 13.01.2011 passed by the District    Consumer  Disputes  Redressal         Forum,           Moga.    

                                     

Quorum:-

                   Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member

                    Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                   :         Sh. P.K.Kataria, Advocate

          For respondent No.1   :         Sh. Naveen Sharma, Advocate

          For respondent No.2   :         Sh. Jag Nahar Singh, Advocate

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER:-

 

          This appeal has been filed by appellant/complainant against the order dated 13.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga  (in short “District Forum”), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties (in short 'OPs') was dismissed.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the OPs advertised a tour programme to Malaysia, Singapore, Bangkok with the assurance that the tour would be luxurious, entertaining, free of tension and full of enjoyment. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.69000/-  and booked the tour with OP No.1 through  OP No.2 which was for  11 nights and 12 days starting from 20^th July, 2010 to 31^st of July 2010. The details of the tour programme was given in paras No.2  to 6 of the complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant was not given any facilities as per the programme and assurance given by the OPs. Infact,  the tour was full of tension, without providing proper meals, rest and other facilities as promised, due to which the complainant suffered mental tension and physical harassment. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, he sought directions to the OPs to compensate him for not providing the adequate stay at time promised and meals and at proper rest. Compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs for mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation was also prayed.

3.                Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint was filed by the complainant on mere conjectures and surmises. The complaint itself was vexatious and malafide containing false and frivolous allegations. It was pleaded that tour organized by it consisted of 35 passengers in trip till Malaysia and 52 passengers for the trip from Malaysia and Singapore. No passenger, except the complainant, ever complained of any deficiency of service with regards to the meals and time of check-in and check-out from the Hotel and or the flights timings.  OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 provided the detailed summary of package to the passengers orally as well as in writing much before the start of journey. The main grievance raised by the complainant is about the lesser number of meals provided during the tour, whereas in the  briefing sheet, the entire details of the meals was mentioned and same were provided to the passengers accordingly. It was further  pleaded that at no point of time it deviated from its promised and agreed services. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his averments. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and took the preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable qua it as there was no deficiency in service on its part because it was the sole responsibility of OP No.1 to look after the guests during the tour. It took the almost similar pleas as taken up by OP No.1. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

5.                Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Forum, which after going through the same, dismissed the complaint.

6.                Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal on the grounds that District Forum has not considered the fact that it was the duty of the OPs to schedule the programme in such way that a comfortable stay is provided to the guests. As per the schedule given to him, the flight from Bangkok was to start at 9.25 AM and reach Kuala-lumpur at 12.30 PM but the boarding pass clearly showed that the flight was at 12.05 hours& not at 9.25 AM. It has been admitted by the OPs that on 31.7.2010, complainant and other passengers were required to check out at 11.00 AM whereas the flight was at 11.00 PM i.e. after a gap of 12 hours. This clearly shows that uncomfortable schedule was made by the OPs that caused harassment to him. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly came to the conclusion that  the irregular flight timings are not in the hands of the OPs. The complainant was forced to check out at 11.00 AM whereas the flight was scheduled at 11.00 PM. It was not the case of the complainant that the flight timings changed on 31.7.2010 to 11.00 PM rather the planning made by OPs was not at all comfortable. It was also the duty of the OPs to provide comfortable stay and not to treat the guests as animals. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record by the complainant to the effect that non providing of the agreed facilities by the OPs not only amounted to deficiency in service but also was an unfair trade practice on their part. Hon'ble National Commission, vide its order dated 30.8.2010, has held that when the people opt for tours, they do have expectations and preferences regarding the facilities originally stipulated in the tour programme and directed the respondents to compensate the complainant in that case. Acceptance of the complaint and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.

7.                We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties, have carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the learned counsels of the parties.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant availed a package tour programme arranged by OPs for trip to Thailand, Malaysia and  Singapore that consisted of 11 nights 12 days starting from 20^th July, 2010 to 31^st of July 2010 on payment of Rs.69,000/- to OP No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that while advertising the said Tour Programme, OPs gave an assurance that tour will be luxurious, entertaining, free of tension and full of enjoyment. But, infact, the same was full of tension without providing proper meal, rest and other facilities as promised due to which he suffered mental tension and physical harassment at the hands of the OPs. It is further the case of the complainant that it was the duty of the OPs to schedule the programme in such a way that a comfortable stay was provided to the guests. But on reaching Bangkok airport at 06.55 AM on 20.07.2010, the OPs were to take the complainant, alongwith other group members, directly from the airport to the hotel as he was on his journey for the last 22 hours and badly needed rest. But, instead of doing so, they were kept roaming in the bus in the city without providing any meal and ultimately checked in the hotel only at 4.00 PM. Though the complainant made numerous requests to the Guide of the tour to arrange for rest but his request was not accepted. Another grievance of the complainant is that on 26.7.2010 the flight No.AK735 was scheduled to depart from Bangkok at 12.05 noon, but, he was made to wake up at 3.30 AM at Hotel Dream and was to made to sit in the lobby of the hotel so as to reach the airport at 6.00 AM. Thus, from 6.15 am to 12.00 noon, the complainant and another members were forced to sit at the airport without providing any meal which was very tiring. Similarly on 31.7.2010, the return flight from Singapore to Delhi was scheduled to depart at 11.00 PM, but, he was made to check out from the Hotal Swissotel Stamp ford at 11.00 AM in the morning and was made to sit for 12 Hours without providing any meal. The OPs have categorically denied any deficiency in service on their part. It was contended that the tour programme was conducted as scheduled, details of which, were duly supplied to the complainant in the form of the Itinerary and the "Briefing Sheet" containing the entire details of the meals to be provided to the passengers and schedule of checking in and out of various hotels. At no point of time the OPs deviated from its promised and agreed services.

9.                The complainant himself has proved on record the Briefing Sheet as Ex.A-9 in which apart from mentioning the flight schedule from Delhi-Bangkok-Kuala Lumpur and back from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok and Delhi, dates and names of various hotels, where guests were to be stayed, are specified. It is further, mentioned that standard check in time was 1400 hours and check out time was 1200 hours.

10.              The package included two nights accommodation in Kuala-lumpur, Half day city tour of Kuala-lumpur including entrance ticket to KL Tower, KL by night, Batu Caves, 2 night accommodation in Genting Highland, Outdoor Theme Park Pass & Transfers as per the Itinerary. 3 night's accommodation in Singapore, Half day city tour of Singapore, Sentosa Island Tour including Merlion, 4D Magix, Dolphin Lagoon, Skyride, Luge ride, Underwater World & Songs of the Seas & Transfers as per Briefing Sheet-Oriental Dream (Ex.R-8).

11.              OPs have placed also on record the detailed tour programme, including the places to be visited on each day and the hotels where guests were to be stayed as Ex.R-9 in which under the programme Day 1, it is mentioned that after arriving in Bangkok to warm reception, guests were to be taken on a  2.5 hour drive to picturesque  Pattaya, a breathtakingly beautiful beach resort and thereafter the guests were to be checked in the hotel and provided with the dinner. Admittedly, the Itinerary  as well as the Briefing Sheet was handedover to the complainant before the start of the tour and he accepted the same and booked the package thereafter. This package tour was not a tailor made programme at the specific request of the complainant but, infact, it was a pre arranged package that was opted by complainant, without any change or objection. As per Day Wise Itinerary (Ex.R-9), the guests were to be taken on arrival at Bangkok on 2.5 hour drive to Pattaya and other places and then return to the hotel for overnight stay. Thus, the OPs were not supposed to take the complainant to any hotel immediately after reaching Bangkok as per his specific request by deviating from the pre arranged tour programme.

12.              As regards the waking up of the complainant at 3.30 AM for taking him to the Airport at 6.15 AM on 26.07.2010 to catch scheduled flight to Kuala Lumpur, it is seen from Ex.A-9 that scheduled departure was at 9.25 AM and thus the passengers were required to reach the International Airport atleastt three hours before the scheduled departure. Though the boarding pass Ex.A-8 proved by the complainant, showed that passengers were allowed to board the plane at 11:25 hours but it does not mean that flight was scheduled at that time. It rather confirms that the flight was delayed for which the OPs cannot held liable. Thus, waking up of complainant early in the morning to reach the airport in time was not improper.

13.              As regards the early checking out from hotel on 31.07.2010 at 11:00 AM on the return day when the flight was at 11:00 PM is concerned, it noted that 11 nights stay in hotel was already over and passengers were to get the return flight in the evening. As per the Briefing Sheet Ex.A-9 the standard check in time in the hotel was 14:00 hours and check out time at 12.00 hours. This checking-out from hotel Swissotel Stamford on 31.7.2010 was also as mentioned in the Briefing Sheet.

14.              The complainant has contended that it was the duty of the OPs to schedule the programme in such a way that comfortable stay is provided to the guests. As already discussed above the programme was not prepared as per the request of the complainant but it was a pre-arranged package consisting of 12 days and 11 nights with specified Itinerary and fixed schedule for sight seeing and stay in the hotels having standard check in and check out timings. Complainant accepted the package and paid the amount without any objection. OPs were, thus, bound to follow the schedule strictly. So far as the contention of the complainant regarding the tour having not been found comfortable and enjoyable by him is concerned, the term 'enjoyable' is purely relative. Some tourists find sight seeing and visiting places of tourist interest very enjoyable even if they are not so comfortable, while others may prefer to relax in a hotel for enjoyment. Pre-arranged tours are primarily aimed at showing maximum places having tourists interest in minimum possible time frame at affordable price. In case a tourist is interested in touring with sufficient comfortable stay, then he should plan the tour as per his specific requirement rather than opting for packaged tour. Such individual tour may or may not be economical. Service provider can be held deficient when and only when he fails to provide services that were promised by him. Complainant has failed to point out any deviation in the tour programme or OP No.1did not provide meals which were promised by the OPs as per package. The OPs have strictly followed the schedule as mentioned in the Itinerary and the Briefing Sheet. Hence we find no merit in the appeal filed by the complainant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed and impugned order of District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.

15.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.01.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

16.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.      

                                                            (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                               PRISIDING MEMBER

 

                                              (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                              MEMBER

 

           

February  05 , 2015