Punjab

Sangrur

CC/316/2017

Anil Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Ratol

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  316

                                                Instituted on:    10.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       14.11.2017

 

 

Anil Kumar Gupta son of Keemat Rai Aggarwal, resident of H.No.124, Prem Basti, St. No.1, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. having its head office at DLF Building No.5, Tower C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram-122 002 through its Manager.

2.             City Tour and Travels, through its owner Bobby, Dhuri Gate, Bazar, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1  :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2  :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 through OP number 2 by getting booked a tour package vide ID number IN705B4S4089149 for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- for three persons and the complainant paid the amount of Rs.90,000/- through HDFC Bank, as the Op number 1 had promised that if the payment is made through HDFC Bank, then there will be a cash back of Rs.15,000/-, which was never paid to the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant had been cheated by the OPs by charging Rs.47,000/- in excess as the same package was available in the market for Rs.35,000/- per person whereas the OP number  1 charged Rs.50,700/- person. Another grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 charged an amount of Rs.1200/- being the cost of sim, which is said to be illegal.  Further grievance of the complainant is that on arrival in the hotel, the OPs provided rooms at a distance meaning thereby the OPs provided room number 419 and 438 which were at a distance, whereas the adjoining room was available.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs.47,000/- so charged by the OPs and further to refund Rs.1200/- and Rs.6000/- so charged in excess and further refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- being the cash back as promised by the Op number 1 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant got booked a tour through OP number 2 to Tashkent in Uzbekistan, that the said tour package for Tashkent started on 11.6.2017 and ended on 15.6.2017 and the tour package included services for return air ticket on Uzbekistan Airway, four nights accommodation in Hotel Le Grand on sharing basis, early check in, buffet breakfast, lunch and dinner as directed in the itinerary, entrance fee for all mentioned monuments, shopping tour, tour to Charvak Lake and Chimgan Hills with Chair Lift, Tashkent City tour and transfers from airport-hotel-airport.  On merits, it is admitted that the OPs provided complete details of the package in advance to the complainant and post getting confirmation from the complainant herein upon the same, as per his satisfaction, received the booking amount and the complainant paid the amount of Rs.90,000/- at his own from his HDFC Bank card. The OP has no roll in possessing the cash back etc. It has been denied that the Op charged any amount of Rs.1200/- as alleged by the complainant rather the same was charged by the network operator for providing the sim to the complainant. It is stated that the allegation regarding providing of same category rooms to the other persons who had given Rs.35,000/- for the package is nothing more than a baseless allegation which is without any proof.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1  has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and Ex.Op1/2 copy of authority letter and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 through OP number 2 by getting booked a tour package to Tashkent  for the period from 11.6.2017 to 15.6.2017.  It is also an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.90,000/- in advance and the remaining amount was paid thereafter.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though the OP number  1 charged an amount of Rs.50,700/- per person, whereas the other providers were providing the same tour package at Rs.35,000/- per person, meaning thereby the OP number 1 charged an amount of Rs.47,000/- in excess from the complainant. Further grievance of the complainant is that the representative of the Op number 1 charged an amount of Rs.1200/- for providing the sim and further an amount of Rs.6000/- was paid less in conversion of the currency and further an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been claimed as cash back discount as the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.90,000/- through HDFC Bank. 

 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that before taking the tour by the complainant, all the complete itinerary was shared with the complainant and only after his full satisfaction, the complainant opted and purchased the tour to Tashkent and paid the amount.  It is contended further that if the same tour programme was available in the market at the lesser rate, then what was the emergency for the complainant to purchase the same from the OP number 1 through OP number 2.  The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has contended further that the complainant was never promised or told that he will be getting Rs.15,000/- cash back if the payment is made through HDFC Bank.  We have also perused the document Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 whereby the offer for Tashkent is Rs.36,500/- per person and Rs.32,800/- per person.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the complainant that the OP number 1 charged any excess amount, more so when there is nothing mentioned on the documents Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 that the rates provided therein were for the same dates i.e. 11.6.2017 to 15.6.2017 as availed by the complainant from the OP number 1. It is worth mentioning here that the offer rates provided by tour provider moves towards up and down as per the weather and season etc.  Further the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the Op number 1 ever promised that there will be a cash back of Rs.15,000/- for the complainant, if the payment is made through HDFC Bank card.  Moreover, we may mention that the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 in providing service during the tour programme of the complainant.  As such, we feel that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

8.             Further a  bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has levelled serious allegations of cheating on the OPs. We may mention that if the complainant has levelled the allegation of cheating, then the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.  We may mention that in para 3(b) the complainant has mentioned “That the complainant had been cheated by the opposite parties by charging Rs.47,000/- excess as the same package which the complainant had availed from the opposite parties is available in the market for Rs.35,000/- per person (with no hidden costs and charges)….”.  In the circumstances, on this count also, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

 

 

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

10.           A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        November 14, 2017.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member