DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.434/2012
Shri A Sood and ANR.,
S/o Late Shri T S Sood,
R/o M-17, Green Park Main,
New Delhi-16 ….Complainant
Versus
M/s Air India
Safdarjung Airport, Aurbindo Marg,
New Delhi-110016
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 31.08.2012
Date of Order : 18.01.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant availed the services of OP-Air India in booking a holiday package “Kashmir-the Paradise” on payment of Rs. 38530/- which included air travel to Delhi-Srinagar-Delhi, hotel, meals etc. The complainant availed the air travel part of the package however did not utilize the package items including airport transfers, inter-city transfers and lodgings in Srinagar, Gulmarg and Pahalgam. It is stated that when the complainant reached the houseboat booked for their stay, they found that there was no electricity and the person at the houseboat informed that there had been a fault and it cannot be stated with certainty when the electricity would be restored. Besides, it was stated that houseboat did not have standby arrangement for the electricity supply at houseboat. The complainant further stated considering the circumstances the complainant decided not to stay in the houseboat and requested to make an alternative arrangement which request was declined by the OP. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 21,924/- being the cost of service not provided and/or not availed. A sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been claimed as damages for harassment and loss.
The complainant further stated that person at the houseboat requested the complainant to handover the package confirmation voucher, but the complainant admittedly did not provide the said voucher to the representative at the houseboat. The representative(agent) of the OP insisted on handing over of original voucher because only after the receipt of voucher, they would be able to bill the OP. The complainant received a call from a person claiming himself to be the owner/manager of the Prince of Kashmir Group informing that in the absence of production of original confirmation voucher all further reservations of the complainant in Kashmir would be cancelled.
OP in its reply has denied allegations of deficiency on their part. The OP also relies on the same confirmation voucher, as the complainant and states that complainant was bound by the terms of contract between the parties, which inter-alia included the following terms:
“Instructions for the Guest: The guest is required to give (i) Photocopy of Air tickets (ii) Package confirmation voucher, duly stamped and signed in original (no photocopy) by the issuing travel agent, at the first point of entry to avail the service”
“On arrival at the destination, package confirmation voucher, BTQ certificate (not required for domestic, Nepal and US$ packages) and a photocopy of each passenger’s flight coupon is to be surrendered by the passenger to the hotel/tour operator, failing which the Hotel/Tour operator reserves the right to charge the client for all services directly. Please ensure that the passenger is carrying a copy of the itinerary”
It is further stated in the reply that the OP had performed all that was required of them. It is stated the tour operator sent vehicle on 22.08.12 to transfer the complainant from the airport to the houseboat. It was sent again on 23.08.12 notwithstanding that confirmation voucher has not been handed over. On 23.08.2012 a request was made by the tour operator again to the complainant to handover the confirmation voucher. Thus, it is the case of the OP that appropriate arrangement for stay were made by them but the complainant in his high headedness refused to stay at the houseboat for a minute and did not give time to the OP to start the generator. They have specifically denied that allegation that there was no electricity in the houseboat and no standby arrangement for the electricity supply. OP further pleaded that upon the failure of the complainant to handover the confirmation voucher the booking shall be treated as “No show”, however OP despite non receipt of voucher continued to keep the booking for stay of Complainant open in Pahalgam and Gulmarg.
The complainant in its rejoinder reiterated their stand taken in the complaint including they were informed by the attendant on the houseboat that there was no generator however is conspicuously silent about allegation in the reply that complainant did not stay in the houseboat for more than a minute.
The parties have filed affidavits by way of evidence reiterating their respective stands taken in the pleadings.
The gist of allegation of the complainant, as it appears from the pleadings is, since the houseboat did not have electricity at the time of their arrival and tour operator refused to accommodate them in alternative accommodation, therefore there is deficiency in services by the OP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravneet Singh Bagga vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66 has held the following
“The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it”.
XXXXX
“If the action of the Respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast Rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service”.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines vs Kalpana Rani Debbarma AIR 2020 SC 678 has held the following
“No doubt, it is said that the consumer is the king and the legislation is intended to safeguard and protect the rights and interests of the consumer, but that does not mean that he is extricated from the obligations under the contract in question much less to observe prudence and due care.”
This Commission has carefully gone through pleadings and the confirmation voucher. The complainant was required to handover original confirmation voucher and admittedly the same was not handed over to the tour operator. The complainant having failed to perform his obligation under the contract cannot be permitted to claim non-performance on the part of the OP.
The tour operator, on their part, picked up the complainant from the airport, and offered him a room in the houseboat which was booked for him. From the perusal of the complaint, it is evident, it is the complainant who on his own decided not to stay in the houseboat on the pretext that there was no electricity. Merely because at the time of arrival, there was no electricity in the houseboat should not be a reason to cancel the booking, more so when the complainant left the houseboat within a minute without giving chance to the tour operator to start the generator. Likewise, it would be un-reasonable to expect OP to organize an alternative accommodation for the complainant at such short notice.
This Commission is of the view that the complainant has not been able to demonstrate any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in providing services to the complainant. The complaint is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
File be consigned to court room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
