- Dr. Santanu Kumar Ganguli,
Flat No.6 NW, “SAROBAR”
102, Southern Avenue,
Kolkata-29, P.S. Lake._______ Complainant
____Versus____
- Mercury Travels Ltd.
“Everest House”,
46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
- Ms. Moumita Karmakar,
Executive and Authorised Signatory of
Mercury Travels Ltd.
“Everest House”,
46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.________Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 27 Dated 19/02/2016
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant was invited to present a paper in an international conference at Miami, Florida, USA held from 8.12.11 to 11.12.11 and for which he has contacted an employee of o.p. no.1 to organize his stay at Newyork, Buffalo, Miami and the tour in USA. Complainant stated that the employee of o.p. no.1 introduced him with o.p. no.2.
Complainant further stated that o.p. no.2 quoted the package rates which would be evidence from the e-mail sent by them to complainant dt.9.11.11 and dt.10.11.11. The said copy of e-mail have been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-A.
Complainant further stated that complainant altogether paid a sum of Rs.1,09,380/- by way of a cheque bearing no.027216 dt.18.11.11 amounting to Rs.99,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of India in favour of o.p. no.1 and by cash of Rs.1380/- on 30.11.11 which is equivalent to US$ 1875 for the purpose as stated above. Copy of the bank pass book and cash receipt have been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-B.
Complainant further stated that upon arriving in USA complainant understood that o.ps. organized his stay in cheaper and ill located hotel than that of they were actually promised and charged from complainant in their package rates.
Complainant further stated that complainant gathered hotel bills from Buffalo, Newyork at the time of check out but in Miami the hotel authority refused him to provide any bills. But complainant managed to get the rates from the office of the Miami hotels which is US$ 90 per day. Copies of the said hotel bills have been annexed by complainant with the petition complaint as annex-C collectively. Complainant further stated that since o.ps. have taken much amount than the hotel bills so after returning from USA complainant asked the o.ps. for furnishing the actual bills, statement of accounts and vouchers by a letter dt.15.12.11. Copy of such letter has been annexed by the complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-D.
Complainant further stated that o.p. no.1 furnished a bill dt.16.12.11 for US$ 1875 with a break up of hotel stay and journey. The said copy of the bill dt.16.12.11 has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-E.
Complainant stated that o.ps. neither provided the service as they promised to give to the complainant in terms of the package rate given to him on 9.11.11 and 10.11.11 nor provided actual bills for the hotel stay in Miami USA which causes deficiency of service by o.ps. to the complainant. Upon deprived as a consumer with the o.ps. as service providers complainant filed the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and contested the case. In their w/v o.ps. stated that the complaint petition is not maintainable since there is no specific allegation regarding deficiency of service against them as it was a package deal and complainant enjoyed the entire visit. O.ps. further stated that in such package deal there is no provision for furnishing hotel bills. Hence, o.ps. stated that the claim in respect of the prayer for refund of alleged excess amount of Rs.30,200/- is not justified. O.ps. further stated that they have made the arrangement of complainant for his accommodation in Newyork for three days, day tour for Washington D.C. to Newyork, overnight bus ticket from Newyork to Buffalo and one night accommodation in buffalo, five nights accommodation in Miami and complainant had availed of all the facilities which have been arranged by o.ps. without any grievances but returning at Kolkata o.ps. demanded the hotel bills for his accommodation in USA. But o.ps. had not provided the same to complainant since there is no provision in the package tour to provide hotel bills. O.ps. in their w/v stated that refund of excess amount as has been claimed by complainant which is not within the purview of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate the matter, but it is a clear case of Civil Court and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case since o.ps. had not made any deficiency in service as service providers to the complainant.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, it appears that complainant had a budget of US$ 2000, but o.ps. offered him a composite package on US$ 1850 and complainant admitted by an e-mail dt.11.9.11 sent to o.ps. that “go ahead signal” within his budget of US$ 1850 and upon receiving such e-mail o.ps. provided with the package tour programme of complainant to USA. Complainant had availed of all the facilities offered by o.ps. to complainant at USA both in respect of accommodation as well as tour. Complainant never alleged in deficiency in service in respect of the service providers to o.ps. for accommodation as well as arrangement for tour in USA. Besides, during package programme the hotel bills are not provided to complainant since the entire package programme covers a fixed amount of money. Herein particular case o.ps. received “go ahead signal” from complainant and thereafter they made all arrangements for USA tour of complainant. Beside this, this Forum holds that in a hotel there are accommodations of having different rates. So, it cannot be concluded without doubt that o.ps. made arrangement for accommodation in hotel in USA in a lower rate standard and demanded a higher rate of accommodation in the same hotel. Moreover, complainant never paid any amount more than accepted amount of US$ 1850 for the entire tour which he has been agreed before departure from India. Thus, this Forum holds that o.ps. had not made any deficiency of service to complainant as service providers and as such, complainant is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
