Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/78/2024

MS WORLD TRAVEL HOLIDAYS AND PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VINEET MANCHANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANDEEP KUMAR GARG - Opp.Party(s)

ANIKET SINDHAR

10 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/78/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	20/02/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	10/10/2024

 

 

 

 

 

1.     M/s World Holidays & Pvt. Ltd. (World Travel Arc), through its Director – Vineet Manchanda, Regd. Office at SCF 45, Second Floor, Phase-9, Mohali.

 

2.     Dinesh Kumar, Sales Manager, M/s WTA Holidays & Pvt. Ltd., (World Travel Arc), SCF 45, Second Floor, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

….Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Mandeep Kumar Garg son of Sh. Bachana Ram, Resident of House No. 50, Type-C, Sector 14, P.U. Campus, Chandigarh.

 …. Respondent/Complainant

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Aniket Sindhar, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.         The Appellants have filed a misc. application bearing no. MA/178/2024 for condoning the delay of 27 days in filing the Appeal.

 

2.         In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, Civil Appeal No.8183-8184 of 2013 decided 13.09.2013, it has been held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

 

3.         Further in another judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.,  Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 decided on 07.04.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Para 18 of the judgment, inter alia, that “…. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim. That being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in this regard.”

 

4.         For the reasons stated in the application and in view of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the Appellants have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the stipulated period. 

 

5.         In this view of the matter, the misc. application aforesaid stands allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

 

6.         Accordingly, misc. application bearing no. MA/178/2024 stands disposed of.

 

7.         The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants impugning the order dated 14.11.2023 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/122/2023, in the following terms:-

 

“11.    In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

 

(i)       to refund Rs.90,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the instant complaint till onwards.

 

(ii)      to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

(iii)     to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

12.    This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

 

 

8.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

9.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that believing the assurances given by the representative of Opposite Parties, he obtained their membership by paying an amount of ₹1,00,000/- on different dates. On 26.08.2019 with a view to avail the services of the Opposite Parties the complainant sent e-mail for booking Hotel Glenview, Kausali. However, when there was no response, the Complainant sent reminder dated 27.08.2019, in response to which the Opposite Parties on 07.09.2019 replied that the subject hotel was full and directed the Complainant for booking of some other date. Accordingly the complainant on 08.09.2019 sent another mail, followed by reminders, requesting the Opposite Parties to book the Hotel when the rooms are available. However, the Opposite Parties vide email dated 07.10.2019 informed the complainant that there was no contract with the Hotel. Thereafter, the complainant again requested the Opposite Parties to book Hotel at Manali from 30.12.2019 to 01.01.2020, but the Hotel provided by the Opposite Parties was in very poor condition which brought humiliation to the complainant in the eyes of his family members.  Thereafter, the complainant requested to Opposite Parties for booking of various destinations i.e. Goa, Vrindavan, Dalhousie, Manali but no response was received from the Opposite Parties and they failed to provide the promised service.  Eventually, the Complainant sent a legal notice, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

10.         The Opposite Parties contested the claim of the Complainant by filing reply inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It was asserted that the complainant had sought booking of Hotel Glenview which was not covered under the list of Hotel panel with them. Moreover, said Hotel was higher than the eligibility criterion of the package as the said Hotel was 4 star plus category; whereas, the complaint was eligible for 3-4 star category. It was denied that poor services were provided to the complainant in Glacier Resort. It was submitted that the Complainant himself selected the hotel after checking all the criteria of feedback and location and he himself finalized the Hotel Glacier Resort for 2 rooms. The Complainant did not raise any issue of quality when he was in the Hotel, but raised the same when he reached back to Chandigarh.  Moreover, the amenities and facilities were to be provided by the Hotel management wherein the Opposite Parties have no role to play. It was admitted that the complainant requested for tour of Goa and Vrindavan and was suitably replied that due to COVID19 the Opposite Parties could not arrange the package.  It was alleged that the complainant concealed the factum that he availed holiday package for Haridwar in the month of January 2020. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

11.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission allowed the Complaint and issued directions to the Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.

 

12.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.
13.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

14.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

15.         Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in positive.

 

16.         It is the case of the Appellants/Opposite Parties that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case and without appreciating the correct legal position, which resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

 

17.         Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference. The detailed finding of facts has already been recorded by the District Commission while rejecting the stand of the Appellants/Opposite Parties. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint filed before the Ld. District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 

 

18.         Learned Counsel for the Appellants raised an objection that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, all or any disputes, differences or questions arising out of this transaction shall be settled by arbitration by sole arbitrator to be appointed by WTA.  However, we are not impressed with the same for the sole reason that this Commission has reiterated so many times that this issue has already been set at rest by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements/contracts between the parties cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. As such, objection taken in this regard also stands rejected.

 

19.         Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the Respondent/ Complainant had twisted the facts and had told a blatant lie before the Ld. District Commission. However, the documents available on record runs counter therefrom and showed that despite protracted requests and e-mails exchanged between the Appellants and the Complainant, the request of the complainant for booking of Hotel Glenview at Kasauli was not acceded to on the premises that there was no availability and contract with the said hotel.  Record showed that it was after much urging, the Opposite Parties/Appellants provided destination at Glacier Resort, Manali to the Respondent/ Complainant out of the six hotels listed by them in their panel of hotels. It was the categorical case of the Complainant that the services provided in the said resort was not upto the mark, which fact has been resisted by the Appellants on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on their part in asmuch as the Complainant himself selected and finalized the hotel. It is argued that the Appellants are only booking agents facilitating hotel room reservation between hotel which are the primary service providers with respect to hotel accommodation services and the customers who are ultimate users of hotel accommodation services rendered by the hotel. The amenities and facilities are to be provided by the hotel management and the Appellants have no role herein. However, we are not impressed with the same as the Appellants/Opposite Parties vide e-mail dated 01.11.2019 [Annexure C-15] have themselves asserted that the mentioned properties were very well reviewed and have great location with superb amenities. Contrary thereto, the photographs [Annexure C-16] manifests the poor quality of furniture, improper cleaning and non-working of the geyser in the peak winter season. Once the Respondent/Complainant acted upon the projections made by the Appellants qua the status and standards of the properties available with them, it was for the Appellants to ensure that the user (Respondent/Complainant herein) is provided the accommodation of the same status/ standards by the hotel concerned. If there is any deviation therefrom and the consumer suffered pain and anguish on account of deficient services provided by the said hotel/resort, to our mind, the Appellants cannot be allowed to escape from their responsibility of causing pain and anguish to the Complainant/Respondent and his family members for not getting the desired booking in far off place.
20.         In the aforesaid backdrop, the Ld. District Commission, in para no.9 of the impugned order has rightly held the act of the Opposite Parties for non-providing the promised services to the complainant after receipt of hefty money, to be deficiency in service. At any rate, the Appellants are liable to refund the amount, along with other reliefs granted by the Ld. District Commission. To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

21.         No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

22.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

23.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

24.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

25.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

26.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

10^th October, 2024                                                                     

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”