Date of Filing: 17/08/2011

        Date of Order:12/10/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1517 OF 2011

Miss Chandra Suresh,

D/o. Late P. Suresh,

Aged About 50 years,

R/at: Suryachandra, # 753,

7^th B Main, HRBR Layout, Kalyananagar,

BANGALORE-560 043.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri. N.Nagaraja Rao)                                 ….  Complainant.

V/s

Mr. Shekar G Kandur,

Proprietor, Flight Shop,

No.38-39, South End Cross Road,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.      

(Rep. by Advocate Sri. A.Feroze Nizam)                               …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,95,000/-, are necessary:-

          The group of Rotarians approached the opposite party for a trip to United States who had given the tour program for 22 days, which was modified from time to time and finalized after consultation with the local USA tour partner Mr. Gagan of world tour.  It was promised that the tour would be cashless in the sense the parties need not spent any extra amount and the tour would cover all the places of interests besides meeting the expenses towards mineral water, coffee and snacks.  The complainant was informed that it was Rs.2,90,000/- per person with accommodation, it was further increased to Rs.3,00,000/- per person without justification.  The opposite party also promised accommodation in three star hotels, orientation guided tour in places of interest except in Cruise to Bahamas, showing the places of interest in different locations, a cashless tour which virtually means that no expenditure on food, drinks, snacks and events, showing Grand Canyon by Helicopter ride.  The complainant went on tour on payment of Rs.2,90,000/-.  There was no proper arrangement and coordination between the opposite party and their local tour partner at USA and it was unprofessional.  The escort was informing the complainant of no instruction from the local tour operator was getting instructions from the opposite party and their local partner regarding day’s programme and as a result many of the places of interest were cut short.  Entry fee places were skipped.  Dr. Mohan who was in charge of group had to call opposite party on phone and direct them to give instructions to the tour operator and to show the places of interest.  The tour was not enjoyable.  According to the tour programme two days full sightseeing in New York was there however it was modified but train which left Naigara around 10 am reached New York only around mid night 12 AM.  As a result of which New York sightseeing was restricted to one day.  During the train journey no proper food was served.  The opposite party had failed to make arrangement for serving food at Hilton Hotel, since the hotel was booked for only providing break fast, they could not get the place to serve the food in the hotel as they had picked up the food from another hotel and the food was served on the floor.  According to the tour programme the sightseeing of Grand Canyon was by flight/helicopter, but the Escorts said that there was no instructions to take by helicopter.  On several discussions deliberations by Dr. Mohan the local tour personnel has agreed that they will show the Grand Canyon which will be few hours drive from Las Vegas, but they were taken to the southern side which had no entry fee.  After five hours drive from Las Vega on the next day the complainant was disappointed to see that complainant cannot make sky walk and use of helicopter ride, since the Helicopter was western side.  When the escort was questioned he has told that he has only instructions to show southern side.  After due deliberations, the said escort agreed to take the complainant on the western side.  The complainant was taken back to Las Vegas stating that the driver cannot drive for more than 10 hours in a day.  Hence the whole day tour was messed up.  On the next day they would have taking the complainant to the western side, she was informed in the mid night to get ready to go to Grand Canyon by 6.00 AM.  After breakfast the escort received a phone call from the local tour operator stating that it is impossible to take them to Western Side of Grand Canyon more particularly no provision has been made for payment to Helicopter ride and gate fee.  After intervention by Dr. Mohan and others escort agreed to take complainant and others to Grand Canyon subject to the condition that the expenses towards Sky Walk and other facilities to be incurred by complainant.  They were also told that they have to wait for eight hours in Grand Canyon and reach Los Angelis only next day early morning at 3 pm to which the tour of Los Angelis has to be skipped.  Ultimately, the majority of group decided to shelve the idea of visiting Grand Canyon by Helicopter and decided to proceed towards Los Angelis.  The complainant was not given proper food and breakfast at New York and later the opposite party agreed to refund a sum of $10 to each one of the group members.  The majority of the tour programme was done by coach and train.  The complainant was not provided with snacks and mineral water.  The complainant has been cheated by the opposite party.  Hence a notice was issued to the opposite party on 27.06.2011 demanding refund of Rs.3,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.  Hence the complainant seeking refund of Rs.2,90,000/- paid and Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

2.       In this case the notice was served on the opposite party who engaged the service of an advocate Sri. A. Feroze Nizam who filed Vakalath on 12.09.2011.  Subsequently neither the opposite party nor his advocate were present nor filed any version till date even though it was adjourned on payment of costs.  On 24.09.2011 the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complaint and documents be read as his evidence.  They were heard.  The case was posted for orders.  Subsequently the counsel the opposite party submitted that they are going to file the affidavit and documents on the next date.  But no such affidavit and documents were filed.  Hence on 30.09.2011 the case was posted to hear further, on 04.10.2011 even on that day none appeared none addressed the arguments.  Hence perused the records.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B)         :           As per the final Order

                                       for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A to B:-

5.       The complaint is summarized supra it may be read herein again.  The complaint is as bald as it could be, it does not carry any meaning.  The complainant says at one breath that the entire tour programme was conducted by the opposite party only for the complainant and at another breath she says it is for group of Rotarians who contacted the opposite party and fixed the tour programme? That means it is a programme arranged by the Rotarians; that Rotarians are not parties to the proceedings.

6.       The entire complaint states that the amount fixed was Rs.2,90,000/- per person and it was enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- per person.  At one breath the complainant says she has paid Rs.3,00,000/-, but in the operative portion she wants refund of Rs.2,90,000/- as amount paid by her how? There is no answer.  What is the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party? is not stated.  No document has been produced by the complainant to show that she has paid any amount to the opposite party on any particular date.  Then how can it be said that there is a relationship of consumer and the service provider between the parties.  Further the entire complaint reads that the opposite party in collaboration with the World Tour of USA has arranged the tour programme who is the local tour operator at USA.  That local USA tour Partner Mr. Gagan of M/s. World Tour are not parties to the proceedings, why? There is no answer.

7.       The entire allegation is that, Dr. Mohan and other travellers along with the complainant had made allegations with the local tour coordinator in the matter that co-travellers or Dr. Mohan or local operator, local guide is not a party to the proceedings.  Hence how can it be said that there is any deficiency in service.  They are necessary and proper parties, since they have conducted the tour at U.S.A.

8.       If at all a tour was arranged on a particular amount for the group of persons the complainant would have stated who are the other persons who travelled with the complainant in the tour.  Even that is not stated.  The complainant never stated on what date the tour started from Bangalore when it ended and when they reached Bangalore.  Even the complainant never stated on what date, place and time the food was not served, the mineral water was not served or accommodation was not there, etc.,.  It is as bald as it could be.  Even local escort’s name has not been furnished.

9.       The grievance of the complainant is that the New York sightseeing was for two days, but they left Naigra around 10 AM and reached New York at midnight 12 AM, hence one day New York sightseeing was lapsed.  This is a bald statement.  If the complainant has reached New York lately how can the opposite party to be blamed.  Anyway according to the tour programme in the New York they have to visit statue of liberty in Liberty Island, they have to visit Wall Street, the New York Stock Exchange, World Trade Centre Site, Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, through Soho, Little Italy, Fifth Avenue, Broadway and Madison Square Garden.  This could be visited within one day and they can come back.  The complainant never stated that they have not seen all these places and they have not been taken by the opposite party to these places.

10.     The other allegation is that they were not been supplied with a proper food at the Hilton Hotel.  The food from outside has been supplied to them and is served on the floor.  This is a bald statement.  From where the food was brought? When it was served? Is not stated.  Why all the persons have not complained? There is no answer.  What is the proper food that was expected and what is the improper food that has served? There is no answer.

11.     The other allegation is seeing of Grand Canyon by helicopter.  It is seen from the complaint itself that the opposite party had taken all to Grand Canyon on southern side and shown them and was ready to take them by helicopter at the cost of the complainant and the other persons, but the other persons negatived it.  Hence they returned to Los Angelis.  When the majority of the tour persons declined helicopter ride in preference to Los Vegas what can the opposite party has to do? There is no answer.  Anyway it is not the case of the complainant that Grand Canyon is not been seen by them even by road; it can be seen, even through animals can be seen and by helicopter it can be seen.  It depends on how many days you can stay at Grand Canyon.  In a short while the complainant was shown Grand Canyon.  The complainant wanted to view Grand Canyon through the Helicopter on the following day which was declined by the other tourist persons.  Hence the opposite party could not help.  The other allegation is that the complainant was not served breakfast at New York and they were agreed to reimburse the $ 10.  This is a bald statement.

12.     In any event the complainant has produced only the copy of the tour programme, copy of the notice and postal acknowledgment only; except these there is no other documents produced by the complainant to substantiate her grievance.  There is no material to say that the complainant has suffered anything and there was any deficiency in service.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 12^th Day of October 2011)

MEMBER                                       MEMBER                            PRESIDENT