THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 26TH day of February, 2015
C.C.No.126/2014
Between:
1. Mr.A.Prasad Raju,
S/o A.V.K.Raju,
Aged 59 Years,
Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases in
Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool.
2. Mrs.B.Indira,
W/o Sri.A.Prasad Raju,
Aged 55 Years,
Associate Professor,
Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderbad.
3. Mr.A.Vamsi Krishna,
S/o Sri.A.Prasad Raju,
Flat No.102, Shila Homes,
Venkateswara Nagar, Amberpet,
Hyderabad.
4. Mr.A.Rajendra Prasad,
S/o Gangaram,
Aged 61 Years,
2-2-647/801/3/1,
Central Excise Colony,
Amberpet, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs.S.A.Jalaja,
W/o A.Rajendra Prasad,
Aged 54 Years,
2-2-647/801/3/1,
Central Excise Colony,
Amberpet, Hyderabad.
6. Mrs.N.Vijaya Lakshmi,
W/o Late Laxmirajam,
Aged 55 Years,
2-2-647-220, Flat No.302,
Sri Venkateswara Residency,
Bagamberpet, Hyderabad.
7. Mrs.R.Syamalamma,
W/o Late Suryanarayana Raju,
Aged 65 Years,
Opp.Ramalayam, Gorntla,
Anantapur District.
8. Mrs.P.Saraswathamma,
W/o Late P.Krishna Murthy Raju,
Aged 70 Years,
Endupalli, Near Rayachoti,
Kadapa District.
9. Mrs.B.Janakamma,
W/o Late Devaraju,
Aged 75 Years,
Flat No.301, Kunchan Bhavan,
Vardha Road, Nagapur. …Complainants
-Vs-
Mariappan,
Senior Marketing Manager,
India Island Tourism,
458A, Main Road,
Adayakarunkulam Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627 425. …OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.CH.Joga Rao and P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocates for complainants 1 to 9 and opposite party called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.126/2014
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To directing the opposite party to grant compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to all complainants each one lakh.
- To grant monitory loss of Rs.2,17,400/- with interest at 18% per annum from 01.12.02014.
- To grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of complaint.
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages under section 14 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- To grant any other reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is working as Special Judge for Trail of A.C.B. Cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool. This complaint is filed on his behalf and on behalf of other eight complainants under section 2 (1) (b) (iv) duly authorized by other eight complainant as they are the family members and close relatives of complainant No.1, complainant No.2 is his Wife, complainant No.3 is the son of complainant No.1, complainant No.4 is the brother-in-law and complainant No.5 to 9 are the sisters of complainant No.1. The complainant wanted to experience ship/cruise journey, so they selected to go Lakshadweep Island and they choose Lakshadweep Samudram Package (LSP) the tour was for five days. Cavareti Cruise was flying between Cochin and Lakshadweep for every five days, they selected the date for journey was 26.11.2014. The opposite party introduced himself as Senior Marketing Manager for India Island Tourism, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. The complainant contacted with the opposite party and he informed that he had 10 berths and can arrange Samudram Package. On 30.10.2014 opposite party sent two itineraries (which contains the package schedule and demanded to pay Rs.2,61,450/- for 9 complainants totally, for LSP package and flight tickets from Hyderabad to Cochin. Believing the words of opposite party the complainant No.1 sent one lakh rupees online transfer on 31.10.2014 to opposite party and informed through e-mail. The opposite party did not send air ticket and tour LSP tickets. The complainant made several request through e-mails, at last he asked to send back the money. On 03.11.2014 the opposite party sent a receipt for one lakh and air tickets from Hyderabad to Cochin, but did not send LSP tickets, but assured that LSP tour is sure and 100% confirm. Then the complainant No.1 sent one more lakh rupees online on 06.11.2014 to opposite party. But he did not send receipt for the same. The complainant No.1 complaint against opposite party for Lakshadweep union territory tourism department. Then the opposite party sent receipt for two lakh on 19.11.2014 for the SLP journey from 26.11.2014 to 30.11.2014. When the complainant went to Hyderabad to catch the flight the opposite party informed over phone on 24.11.2014 that LSP ticket were not available and offered two alternative packages. The complainant shocked and accepted one of them going to Lakshadweep by flight and that he booked it from 27.11.2014 to 29.11.2014 but the opposite party was unable to arrange this package also and he was arrange another alternative to Lakshadweep from 29.11.2014 to 01.12.2014. On 27.11.2014 the opposite party arranged one Mohammed Shafick at Lakshadweep to make arrangements, the said Shafick demanded 1.35 lakh for these arrangements. The complainant informed the same to opposite party. The opposite party e-mail the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.61,450/- to Shafick. The complainant agree for the same. At last on 27.11.2014 the opposite party informed that this package was also not confirmed and he will return the amount of Rs.1,61,300/- but he did not return. On 30.11.2014 the complainant requested to pay his money back. The opposite party sent one lakh only on 01.12.2014 and did not sent the balance of Rs.61,450/-.
The complainant enquired about the matter he came to know that the travel agents book number of berths, on payment of 50% to Cruise Authorities three months in advance and 50% remaining before 20 days Cruise departure date, and get berths confirmed and sell these tickets to their customers. The opposite party was not authorized agent and he was only authorized broker, extracted money from the complainants for his personal use and did not booked the tickets either directly or through agents with an intention to cheat them by giving false promises through his e-mails, and phone calls that the tour was 100% pakka. The complainants are old ladies suffering with diabetics stayed in Cochin for four days 24th to 29th November, 2014 with lot of tension without any proper food with lot of difficulty. The very purpose of tour Cruise Travel on the sea also missed on account of cheating and breach of trust by opposite party. The opposite party did not render the services as promised. There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Due to attitude of opposite party the complainant’s suffered lot of mental agony. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party called absent and set ex-parte.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A25 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.
5. Complainant filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Points i and ii:- It is a case of the complainant that the complainants selected the tour (Lakshadweep Samudram Package LSP), the tour was for five days from 26.11.2014 to 30.11.2014. The complainant No.1 contacted with opposite party. Because the opposite party introduced himself as Senior Marketing Manager for India Island Tourism and can arrange LSP, package as he had 10 berths. The opposite party send two itineraries (it contains the package schedule) which are marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The opposite party demanded totally for 9 complainant an amount of Rs.2,61,450/- for LSP package and flight tickets from Hyderabad to Cochin. The complainant No.1 sent one Lakh to opposite party on 31.10.2014 and informed through mail, it is marked as Ex.A3. But opposite party did not send the tickets and receipts for the said amount. Several request made by the complainant No.1 and asked to send back money, then the opposite party sent a receipt on 03.11.2014 which is marked as Ex.A8. The opposite party assured that LSP tour is sure and 100% confirm under Ex.A9. So the complainant No.1 sent rupees one Lakh more on line on 06.11.2014. The receipt for Two Lakhs marked as Ex.A11, when the complainant went to Hyderabad to catch the flight on 24.11.2014. Suddenly the opposite party informed that LSP tickets were not available.
The opposite party offered two alternative packages. Even though the complainant accepted the alternative package, he did not make arrangement for the said package also. The opposite party arranged one Mohammed Shafick at Lakshadweep to make arrangement but Shatick demanded 1.35 Lakh to opposite party. The opposite party informed that the complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.61,450/- to Shafick. The complainant agree for the same. Finally on 27.11.2014, the opposite party informed under Ex.A22 that this package was also not confirmed, he will return the amount of Rs.1,61,300/-. On the request of complainant, the opposite party sent one Lakh on 01.12.2014 and did not send the balance of Rs.61,450/-. The complainant came to know that the opposite party is not an authorized agent to Cruise Authorities. He was only a broker. The opposite party extracted money from the complainant and used for his personal use and did not provide any services to the complainants. The complainant lodged a complaint against opposite party under section 420-409 of Indian Penal Code for cheating and breach of trust. The complaint copy is marked as Ex.A25. The communication between the complainant No.1 and opposite party was through phones and e-mails which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A24. Due to the attitude of opposite party the complainants are old ladies stayed in Cochin for four days from 25th to 29th November, 2014 without proper food with lot of tension. The complainants incurred monitory loss and opposite party caused mental agony to the complainants. The same facts stated in the written arguments of complainant.
Inspite of notice served on him, the opposite party did not choose to either appear or filed any written version on behalf of him. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record it should presumed that the evidence placed on record by the complainant are undisputed evidence and admitted facts. In order to substantiate his case the complainant filed and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A25. As seen from Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 it is clear that the complainant No.1 contacted with opposite party and opposite party informed that he had 10 berths and he can arrange Lakshadweep Samudram Package from 26.11.2014 to 30.11.2014 for amount of Rs.2,61,450/- for 9 persons. Though the complainant No.1 paid two lakhs on different dates on 31.10.2014 and 06.11.2014 for the air tickets from Hyderabad to Cochin and for the said LSP Package and agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.61,450/- at Cochin. But the opposite party intentionally did not arrange any tickets for LSP and made one after another alternative without complying any promises. The complainants who are senior citizens suffered very much mentally. The opposite party caused inconvenience and harassment and compel them to travel from their residence to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Cochin without making arrangement for their tour (LSP). As per Ex.A8 and Ex.A11 it is evident that the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to opposite party, when once amount is paid the relationship is established, the complainants becomes the consumer, and the opposite party becomes a service provider. The opposite party must not misrepresent in any manner about himself or services under takes to provide. The opposite party must take care as much the standard of care cannot be less than what he has contracted to provide. His obligation is to provide safe, comfortable, and on time, and he has to be fair and honest in his dealings. If he has failed to discharge his obligations, he is liable to compensate for any loss that may suffer as a result of such failure.
The complainant cited a decision in reported in I (2012) CPJ 513 (NC) Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited -Vs- Arun Singh and others. In the cited case the Tours and travel not provided facilities to the complainants. The complainants suffered inconvenience and harassment. Hence the District Forum awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- State Commission (U.P.), dismissed appeal and the Honourable National Commission also dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of District Forum. The facts of cited case are applicable to the present case on hand.
We consider all the material available on record the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the kind of inconvenience which the complainant had suffered we hold the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and caused mental agony to the complainants.
8. Point No.iii:- The complainants prayed to grant monitory loss of Rs.2,17,400/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of 01.12.2014 and for further compensation of Rs.9,00,000 to all complainants each one lakh and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the complaint and Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages under 14 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. As the complainants are residing at different locations and they reached to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Cochin and stayed for four days at Cochin they might have incurred expenditure of Rs.2,17,400/- so they are entitled for the said amount and further the complainants had been suffered mental agony and inconvenience and harassment due to the attitude of opposite party. Hence they are entitled for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for each complainant and further entitled for Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages and Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,450/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date i.e., on 01.12.2014 to till the date of realization and further direct to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for each complainant and further direct to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damage to the complainants and Rs.10,000/- costs of the complaint. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainants:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of E-mail received by complainant.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of E-mail received by complainant.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of E-Mail sent to opposite party.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of E-Mail sent to opposite party.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of E-Mail sent to opposite party.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of E-Mail sent to opposite party.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Cash Receipt dated 03.11.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of E-Mail sent to opposite party.
Ex.A11 Photo copy of Cash Receipt dated 19.11.2014 for Rs.2,00,000/-.
EX.A12 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A13 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A14 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A15 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A16 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A17 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A18 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A19 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A20 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A21 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A22 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A23 Photo copy of E-Mail sent to opposite party.
Ex.A24 Photo copy of E-Mail received by opposite party.
Ex.A25 Police Complaint dated 30.11.2014.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
