Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/41/2015

S.Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Subramani Palaniyappan - Opp.Party(s)

T.R.Daveson-com

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  13.01.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  29.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 29^th   DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.41/2015

 

 

S.Krishnan,

Residing at Door No.85,

18^th Street, III Cross, Periyar Nagar,

Chennai – 600 082.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Mr.Subramani Palaniappan,

Carrying business at Door No.15,

Shop No.1/64, Rangiyam,

Via Mithilaipatti Post,

Thirumayam Taluk,

Pudukottai District,

Tamil Nadu – 622 409.

 

2. Madurai Sri Murugan Travel Agency,

Having Office at No.15/1B,

Veerasamy Street,

Periyamet,

Chennai – 600 003.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 04.03.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. T.R.Daveson & D.P.Saravanan

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : R.Radha Pandian, S.Raghuman

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to return the tour package cost of Rs.11,480/-and compensation for the misbehavior and made the complainant to travel without ticket and deficiency in service with cost of this complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

        The first opposite party is a professional tour organizer. The complainant and his wife to participate in Tour-F programme. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,480/- and Rs.4000/- towards the package on 18.07.2014 and 01.08.2014 respectively. According to the tour package, as induced by the first opposite party the participants will be taken from Chennai to Mandralaya, Navabrindavan, Sholapur, Pandaripuram, Shirdi, Shanisignapur and back to Chennai. It was assured that hygienic decent quality food and lodging will be given.

          2. The agony of the complainant and his wife started at Mandralaya on 14.08.2014 as per schedule, the next station was to Navabrindavan. Every one was asked to be ready on 15.08.2014 to go to Navabrindavan and they were anxious to go there. Abruptly without any prior information 35 participants were asked to squeeze into 5 cars, i.e., 7 persons per car, excluding the driver and made to travel 150 Kilo Metres to Alampur, Seemantra to pay visit to temples over there. When the complainant questioned about the re-scheduling of the programme and expressed their inconvenience of crushing participants in cars, the first opposite party reported that Navavrindavan is facing flood and that the programme could not be proceeded. It was a total falsity that Navabrindavan was then flooded.

          3. On 15.08.2014 the participants after returning to Mandralaya were to go Sholapur and given e-ticket. When e-ticket was perused, the tickets were not from Mandaralaya to Sholapur, but only from Raichur to Sholapur. This conveys the fact that my clients were to travel by train as ticketless passengers from Mandaralaya to Raichur and provided sub-standard food and sub-standard lodging throughout the tour in deficiency.

          4. The act of the opposite parties has made the complainant and his wife to undergo sufferings both physically and mentally. The conduct of disappointing the elderly people by rescheduling the programme agonized them. The complainant caused a legal notice dated 28.08.2014 to both the opposite parties to compensate for deficiency of service. Despite the legal notice both the opposite parties chose not to reply. Hence the complainant filed the complaint to direct the opposite party to return the tour package cost of Rs.11,480/-and compensation for the misbehavior and made the complainant to travel without ticket and deficiency in service with cost of this complainant.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF

          The opposite parties admit that they are professional tour organizer and the complainant and his wife participated in tour –F programme and he had paid the tour package amount. The opposite parties also agreed to take them for the places mentioned in the program and the tour also commenced on 13.08.2014. The opposite parties provided service as assured in their pamphlets.

6. The allegation of the complainant that the complainant and his wife were made to travel from Mandaralaya to Raichur is false. The fact remains as per schedule the tour passengers are to be boarded at Raichur to Sholapur and reserved e-ticket was given to them. However from Mandaralaya to Raichur is to be traveled by car as per schedule and due to heavy rain and road condition, the travel by car was difficult and could not reach Raichur station and hence the 1^st opposite party arranged open tickets for train from Mandaralaya to Raichur and arranged seats through TTR for all the passengers and they traveled comfortably.

7. The 1^st opposite party made the complainant to travel in a four seater car and carrying 7 persons excluding driver is false. On 15.08.2014 as per schedule they have to proceed from Mandaralayam to Navabrindavan and the same could not the done due to heavy rain and risky to visit the place. Hence with the consent of all passenger site seeing places of Alampur and Seemanthara was rescheduled and though places were visited by them in five cars, which can carry easily 8 to 13 persons but a car carried 8 persons only at that time and the passengers also enjoyed. The complainant and his wife were given standardized food and taken proper care of them by the opposite parties. The other averments made in the complaint are denied. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.           

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

9. POINT NO :1

          The admitted facts are that the opposite parties are regularly arranging tours and they issued ExA1 pamphlet containing various tour programs, the complainant and his wife participated in the Tour-F program and the complainant paid Rs.7,480/- and Rs.4000/- towards package and the places of visits are  from Chennai to Mandralaya, Navabrindavan, Sholapur, Pandari puram, Shridi, Shanisignapur and back to Chennai and accordingly the tour commenced on 13.08.2014 at Chennai.

          10. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite party that

1. timely food was not given and the food provided is substandard,
2. the places assured Navabrindavan, Pandaripuram was not taken,
3. without train tickets the complainant and his wife were made to travel from Mandaralaya to Raichur,
4. in a small car with a capacity of 4 persons they forced to travel 7 persons and caused mental agony to the complainant.

11. The opposite party would reply that they have not committed any deficiencies to the complainant and other passengers further excepting this complainant and the other tour passengers have not made any complaint, itself proves that no deficiencies committed by the opposite parties.

    12. The allegation of the complainant that timely food was not given and substandard food given has not been substantiated by any other evidence excepting the oral statement of the complainant. Hence, it is held the above allegation timely food not given and substandard food only provided has not been proved by the complainant.

          13. As per the tour schedule Navabrindavan is one of the place has to be seen by the passengers on 15.08.2014. However, according to the opposite parties there was heavy rain and risky to visit that place and the same was informed to the all tour passengers and with their consent they have reschedule and visited the places of Alampur and Seemanthara. To reach that place five cars were arranged and each car can carry 8 to 13 persons easily and however all the 35 were accommodated at 8 persons in each car. The complainant would allege that there is no train and in a small four seater car made 7 persons to travel in a car. The complainant has to prove that there was no rain on the day. He has not provided any evidence to support his case that there was no rain on 15.08.2014 at Navabrindavan. Further the complainant has not said that the name of the four seater car provided to them. The complainant having filed the complaint it is his duty to prove that there was no rain at Navabrindavan and he was made to travel 7 persons. Hence it is held that the complainant failed to prove the above said deficiencies alleged by him against the opposite parties.

          14. The next contention of the complainant is that from Mandaralaya to Raichur he and his wife made to travel as ticketless travel and hence the complainant suffered with mental agony and the opposite parties committed deficiency. As per schedule, the tour passengers has to travel from Mandaralaya to Raichur in car and thereafter from Raichur to Sholapur in train. The opposite parties gave confirmed ExA2 e-ticket to the complainant and his wife and some other passengers to travel from Raichur to Sholapur. According to the opposite parties there was heavy rain at Mandaralaya and hence they had obtained open ticket to the passengers to travel form Mandaralaya to Raichur and also arranged seats to them through TTR. The fact of obtaining open ticket was not denied by the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that he was made to travel in a reserved coach with open ticket and thereby he was humiliated and hence the opposite parties committed deficiency. Due to the rain only the opposite parties suddenly arranged the open ticket. Otherwise the passengers could have traveled in the car from Mandaralaya to Raichur. Though the opposite parties at the last movement arranged open ticket, he made comfort to the passengers to get seats for travel. The complainant being the Assistant commissioner of police he could have very well objected to the arrangement of the opposite parties and he should have voluntarily paid the additional fee to the TTR who was very much available in the coach and then he should contend that the opposite party committed deficiency. The complainant simply kept quiet for the arrangements made by the opposite parties and comfortably traveled and therefore we hold that in this respect also the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency. Therefore, from the forgoing discussion we hold that the deficiencies alleged by the complainant have not been proved by him and hence it is held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.              

15. POINT NO:2

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No Cost.  

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Tour Pamphlet issued by opposite party

Es.A2 dated 24.07.2014                   Copy of E. Reservation Ticket

Ex.A3 dated 24.07.2014                   Letter of Confirmation of Reservation from

                                                     opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 18.07.2014                   Bills issued by the opposite party

               To 01.08.2014

 

Ex.A5 dated 28.08.2014                   Lawyer’s Notice issued to opposite parties

 

Ex.A6 dated 30.08.2014                   Acknowledgement Cards to Lawyers

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Travelling Tables with Rules

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     List of Passengers

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT