Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/31/2022

M/s Travel Talkies - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manjeet Saini - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Tuli Adv.

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	31 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	31.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	15.12.2022

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Travel Talkies, Regd. Office: VPO: Rampur, Keonthal, District & Tehsil: Shimla, Himachal Pradesh through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Manjeet Saini son of Sh. Gurjant Saini, aged about 28 year r/o House No.454, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2. The Humsour View Manali, Siyal Rd. Behind Tibetian Monastery, Siyal, Manali, Himachal Pradesh 175131 through its Branch Manater/Owner.

…Respondent/Opposite Party No2.

 

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued By:-      

Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Kaveesh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

 

 

 

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by opposite party No.1, namely, M/s Travel Talkies (appellant herein) against order dated 21.10.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.217 of 2021 filed by the complainant, namely, Manjeet Saini (respondent No.1 herein) has been partly allowed by the said Ld. District Commission in the following manner:-

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

1. to refund the amount of ₹10,302/- paid by the complainant towards the booking made by him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 15.12.2020 till realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.    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 remaining directions.”

2.                Briefly stated the case of respondent No.1/complainant before the Ld. District Commission was that he was allured by the opposite parties into various tour packages, honeymoon packages and holiday packages and offered a 4 days 3 nights package.  Opposite party No.1 informed charges of the tour package as approximately Rs.30,500/- for two couples.  The opposite parties also sent photographs through WhatsApp showing the view from the balcony. Believing the same, complainant booked the package and paid Rs.10,302/- on 15.12.2020.  The opposite parties confirmed the booking for four adults having check in date as 25.12.2020 and check out as 28.12.2020. Averred, the complainant alongwith his wife and another coupled checked in at “The Humsour View Manali” as per booking schedule, but, the opposite parties failed to fulfil the assured commitments and neither the welcome drink nor the rooms as per image were provided. Despite requests of the complainant, nothing was done by the opposite parties and rather they flatly refused to arrange the rooms. Left with no alternative, the complainant at his own arranged rooms in The Rudra Place and stayed there for two nights and paid Rs.18,000/-. He also had to pay Rs.9,500/- to M/s Modi Taxi Service. Averred due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the honeymoon trip was spoiled.

3.                The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 5.7.2021.

4.                However, in appeal, Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate represented respondent No.1/complainant whereas Sh. Kaveesh, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

5.                The order passed by the Ld. District Commission has been assailed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 on the grounds that the summons were received by the appellant to appear before the Ld. District Commission for 05.07.2021 but the appellant could not come to Chandigarh himself due to the pandemic of corona virus as the inter-state coming and going was not so easy and was also not permitted. It has further been stated that the appellant could not hire any advocate to appear on his behalf as the appellant is not known to anyone here in Chandigarh and hence, could not appear and was proceeded exparte on 05.07.2021. It has further been stated that after few months, in the month of October 2021, the appellant received copy of the impugned order and approached Counsel Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate at Shimla and enquired about the implication of the order, who advised the appellant to approach any Lawyer at Chandigarh and then she asked her real brother Sh. Punet Tuli, Advocate, practicing at Chandigarh Courts, to look after the case of the appellant. It has further been stated that in the first week of March 2022, the appellant approached Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate and signed the Vakalatnama, who filed application for inspection and also applied for the certified copy of order dated 21.10.2021, which was received and accordingly, appeal has been filed with a delay of 113 days, for which, a separate application (MA/262/2022) seeking condonation thereof has also been filed on similar grounds. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant placed on record order bearing No.SCM-ADM(L&O)/COVID-19-1500-1523 dated 12^th June 2021 issued by District Magistrate, Shimla (HP) under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and while relying upon the said order, he argued that first of all, there was restriction of 50% staff working and second, restriction was of inter & intra state movement of public transport buses and private vehicle, autos, taxis subject to strict compliance of Covid-19 safety instructions.

6.                We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

7.                First of all, we would like to dispose of Miscellaneous Application No.262 of 2022 filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 113 days. This Commission is not oblivious of the fact of the situations prevalent due to COVID-19 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Original Jurisdiction, Miscellaneous  Application  No.21  of 2022 In  Miscellaneous  Application   No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu  Writ  Petition (C)  No. 3 of 2020, In  Re:  Cognizance  For  Extension of Limitation, passed the order dated 23.03.2020 and directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 (with extension of 90 days) i.e. till the end of May 2023 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. The present appeal has been filed on 31.03.2022. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the application and also keeping in view the aforesaid order of Hon’ble Apex Court, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. MA/262/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

8.                Now coming to the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. As regards the sole ground taken by the appellant in the grounds of appeal to set aside the impugned order that though the appellant received the summons to appear before the Ld. District Commission for 05.07.2021 but due to the pandemic of corona virus as the inter-state coming and going was not so easy and was also not permitted, the appellant could not come to Chandigarh and appeared on the said date, it may be stated here that no doubt, there was some restrictions put by the Government but it was not so that the appellant even could not appear before the Ld. District Commission either in person or through ongoing video conferencing. It cannot be accepted that the appellant was not working at all or its official(s) or Proprietor/Partner was not dealing with the affairs of the appellant or was not moving inter or intra state. From the date of notice issued by the Ld. District Commission on 19.04.2021, there was sufficient time with the appellant/opposite party No.1 to contest the complaint and appear before the Ld. District Commission on the date fixed i.e. 05.07.2021 though video conferencing as well. The appellant could also contact the District Commission telephonically, which it did not even bother to do. Rather, the appellant took it very lightly and failed to appear before the Ld. District Commission not only on 05.07.2021 but also on the subsequent date i.e. 12.10.2021, on which date, the complaint was reserved for orders. Even from 05.07.2021, three months period was with the appellant to appear before the Ld. District Commission but it chose to keep silent till impugned order was passed. Thus, in our considered view, the Ld. District Commission rightly proceeded the appellant exparte vide order dated 05.07.2021.

9.                Further it was the case of respondent No.1/complainant before the Ld. District Commission that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 offered a 4 days 3 nights package to respondent No.1/complainant and informed charges of the tour package as Rs.30,500/- for two couples. The opposite parties also sent photographs through WhatsApp showing the view from the balcony and believing the same, respondent No.1/complainant booked the package and paid Rs.10,302/- on 15.12.2020 and booking for four adults was confirmed having check in date as 25.12.2020 and check out as 28.12.2020. It was further the case that the complainant alongwith his wife and another couple checked in at “The Humsour View Manali” as per booking schedule but the opposite parties failed to fulfill the assured commitments as neither the welcome drink nor the rooms as per image were provided. It was alleged that despite requests of respondent No.1/complainant, nothing was done by the appellant and there was flat refusal to arrange the rooms and thus, left with no alternative, respondent No.1/complainant at his own arranged rooms in The Rudra Place and stayed there for two nights and paid Rs.18,000/- and further paid Rs.9,500/-  to M/s Modi Taxi Service. It was alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the honeymoon trip of respondent No.1/complainant was spoiled. 

10.              The Ld. District Commission, after minutely deliberating on the allegations made by respondent No.1/complainant, has rightly observed in Para 8 of its order that honeymoon holds a special place and sentimental value in the lives of newly weds who plan in advance after exploring and surfing various options and finally make the hotel, travel and other bookings as per their requirements and budget and all this is done to avoid any last minute hurdles so that they can enjoy each other’s company. It is further observed that nowadays, it has become very common to see the newly weds posting photographs of their hotel and places visited during their honeymoon. For them, it is a memory to cherish for life and couples get nostalgic remembering those. Respondent No.1/complainant has proved his case before the Ld. District Commission by leading sufficient evidence by way of photographs and documentary evidence that he was assured the view visible from his balcony, which, turned out to be farce and all his plans turned sour immediately upon reaching the hotel, which the Ld. District Commission has righty held so. The appellant failed to provide front balcony view as per the booking. Not only this, on the next very day i.e. 26.12.2021, it failed to provide the rooms as per booking and respondent No.1/complainant had to stay in dirty room. Therefore, we concur with the finding given by the Ld. District Commission that it was but natural for the complainant (newly weds) to be sulking and feeling cheated if the promised services were not provided and as such, respondent No.1/complainant was well within his right to make alternate arrangement at his own in another hotel, for which, the opposite parties were bound to refund the amount paid to them as well as compensate the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him and his wife. Thus, the appellant has miserably failed to make out even a single ground for setting aside the impugned order, which in our considered opinion, which does not suffer from any infirmity or material irregularity and is based upon true appreciation of facts and record.

11.              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.              File be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

15.12.2022.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Ad