03.01.2018
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit – II in Complaint Case No. 551/2015. The Ld. District Forum, by its impugned order, allowed the complaint against the Appellant/O.P. with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The Appellant/O.P. was further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant as compensation for subjecting the Respondent/Complainant to financial loss and also for causing mental pain and agony to him. The Appellant/O.P. was also directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs.1,10,000/- within a period of one month from the date of impugned judgment and order, failing which, the Appellant/O.P. had to pay a penal damage of Rs.5,000/- per month till the realization of the entire decreetal amount and the said amount of penal damage, on collection, would be deposited with the District Forum.
The Appellant/O.P. was cautioned about drawing up proceeding against him under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the C. P. Act, 1986 in case of non-compliance of the impugned order warranting him to pay further penalty and fine.
Briefly stated, the fact of the complaint case filed before the Ld. District Forum was that the Respondent/Complainant, being attracted to the well published package tour to be organized under the aegis of the Appellant/O.P. private limited organization, intended to avail the 5 day and 4 night tour package – Dubai Durga Puja Special – to be commenced on and from 18.10.2015 for self, wife and two minor sons. He booked the tour package on payment of initial booking charge of Rs.10,000/- in cash on 18.08.2015 and subsequently, paid the entire amount of Rs.2,06,959/- on an understanding of providing them with to and fro air transport, transport from airport to hotel, to and fro in Dubai on arrival and on the day of departure by luxury car, food and lodging in good hotels and visiting the places as per itinerary supplied to him at the time of booking of package tour.
Their passports were collected by the Appellant/O.P. for VISA clearance. The passports with VISA clearances along with modified itinerary were given back to them only on 15.10.2015, i.e. three days ahead of their scheduled departure. The Respondent/Complainant, to his utter astonishment, discovered that the itinerary was altogether different from that supplied at the time of booking of the tour package keeping no liability or responsibility on the part of the Appellant/O.P for organizing visit to the places of interest as promised at the time of booking of the package tour.
Since the Respondent/Complainant was left with no chance to cancel the package tour at the eleventh hour, he had to avail the package tour on formal protest against the revised itinerary. The Respondent/Complainant gathered a worst experience so far as the visit to the tourist spots in Dubai is concerned. The visit on spending a fair amount, in view of the above lapse on the part of the Appellant/O.P, became almost of no value to the Respondent/Complainant who, being aggrieved with the aforesaid deficiency in rendering services and adopting deceptive practice for unlawful gain by the Appellant/O.P, preferred the complaint praying for refund of the entire consideration paid together with cost and compensation.
Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.
Emphasizing on the point that the terms of agreement of the subject tour package was not violated at the instance of the Appellant/O.P. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the package had a specific mention about the air fare, to and fro, the journey from airport to hotel on arrival at Dubai Airport and the same from hotel to airport on the date of departure to be provided by the Appellant/O.P. It was also mentioned therein that the tourist had to bear the expenditure for entertainment themselves. Barring and except the selective places, the expenditure for visiting the other places of interest was agreed to be borne by the tourists themselves. Drawing notice of the Bench to running page 67 of the case record, the Ld. Advocate mentioned that the package was devoid of any provision of site seeing.
The Ld. Advocate, however, could not provide the Bench any satisfactory explanation justifying contradiction in his own submission first about arrangement for visiting some selective sites to be made by the Appellant/O.P. as per Agreement and immediately thereafter pleading about no provision of visiting the sites in the package as envisaged at running page 67 of the case record.
As submitted, the Respondent/Complainant claimed reimbursement of expenditure towards site seeing which the Ld. District Forum allowed without application of mind rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, per contra, submitted that there was specific itinerary in the tour package at the time of booking the package as would be evident from running page 31, Annexure – ‘A’. A separate brochure showing altogether a different itinerary from the earlier one was handed over to the Respondent/Complainant further along with VISA at the time imminent to the commencement date of the scheduled tour leaving for the Respondent/Complainant no chance for cancellation of the package.
Annexure – “G” at running page 51, being the communication of the Respondent/Complainant through e-mail to the Appellant/O.P., as contended, would reveal how the Respondent/Complainant had raised protest against the scheduled itinerary.
As submitted, the Appellant/O.P. ensured entry of the Respondent/Complainant and his family into the hotel and left them at their fate without taking care about their visit to places at a foreign country where they were absolutely strangers. This was, as contended, a highest degree of unprofessionalism that had put the Respondent/Complainant to severe stress and agony. In fact, without being able to see more places of the said country, the Appellant/Complainant had lost the entire charm of his visiting abroad.
The Ld. District Forum, as contended, had rightly passed the impugned order on proper appreciation of the case.
Perused the papers on record. There was no doubt that the tour package was properly booked on payment of full charges to the Appellant/O.P. by the Respondent/Complainant. The record revealed that an itinerary, was appended to the package tour at the time of booking the slots. The same itinerary, as further revealed, was changed at the time of handing over VISA to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/O.P. Since the scheduled date of journey was imminent, the Respondent/Complainant had to reluctantly accept the tour package on protest. Perused the protest letter at running page 51.
The revised tour package revealed no specific mention about any itinerary. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. took the same plea that there was no commitment about site seeing in their itinerary when the facts remain that the earlier itinerary, an attracting and acceptable one to the Respondent/Complainant, based on which the tour package was adopted and the consideration paid in full, was changed beyond any knowledge of the Respondent/Complainant befooling them in a manner that they had hardly any scope for the trip to be called off. The Respondent/Complainant, this way, was deprived of getting expected pleasure from his cherished visiting abroad that he was longing for considerable period of time.
The above being a glaring deceptive practice, there cannot be any doubt about deficiency in rendering due service to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/O.P.
We, in view of the above, are inclined to be at one with the observation of the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, ordered, that the appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is affirmed. No order as to cost.
