Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/115/2019

Rampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhatia Travel - Opp.Party(s)

Neha Sharma Adv.

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	115 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05.03.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	03.01.2020

 

 

 

 

1]     Rampal s/o Sh.Maman Singh, R/o 1091, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.

2]     Anil Kumar s/o Sh.Raghvir Singh, R/o 2519-A, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh.

                        …..Complainants

Versus

M/s Bhatia Travel through its Proprietor/Authorised Person Sandeep Kumar, 13/327, Gali No.1, Gobind Nagar, Sirsa.

     ….. Opposite Party

[2]

Consumer Complaint  No	:	114 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05.03.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	03.01.2020

 

 

 

 

1]     Sh.Mahender Singh s/o Sh.Harbans Lal,

2]     Smt.Suman w/o Sh.Mahender Singh,

        Both R/o House No.271, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

                        …..Complainants

Versus

M/s Bhatia Travel through its Proprietor/Authorised Person Sandeep Kumar, 13/327, Gali No.1, Gobind Nagar, Sirsa.

     ….. Opposite Party 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                      PRESIDENT

                SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA                     MEMBER

                       

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Neha Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                        Opposite Party exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                Both these consumer complaints No.115/2019 & 114/2019 having identical facts in issue were dismissed in limine by this Forum vide judgment dated 02.04.2019.  The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 16.7.2019 while allowing the Appeals No.87/2019 & 88/20219 filed by the complainants, have remanded the cases back to this Forum to decide afresh on merits after issuing notice to the Opposite Party.  Accordingly, notices were sent to the Opposite Party. 

 

2]             The facts though similar are being taken from the present Complaint Case No.115 of 2019– Rampal & Anr. Vs. M/s Bhatia Travel.

 

3]             Succinctly put, the complainants, in order to visit Dubai on Tourist Visa, contacted the Opposite Party, who offered a Tour Package of 4 Nights & 5 days @Rs.52,000/- per person with all facilities, as detailed in Para No.2 of complaint.  It is averred that the Opposite Party provided its Bank details as Axis Bank, Branch Barnala Road, Sirsa and accordingly, the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.1,04,000/- in the said bank account of the Opposite Party towards the cost of tour packages. It is stated that the Opposite Party failed to provide the due services as agreed upon during Dubai Tour.  It is also stated that on arriving Dubai, the Opposite Party failed to provide any taxi or vehicle at Airport, despite assurance, as such, the complainant has to hire taxi at own expenses to reach Hotel.  It is further stated that the Opposite Party also failed to provide the stay in promised hotel.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party failed to provide facilities as promised and gave lame excuses without any basis and as such, having no alternative, the complainants have to plan their tour on their own and bear the expenses.  It is also submitted that even the conveyance from Hotel to Airport on 8.11.2018 at the time of departure was not provided by Opposite Party. 

                It is pleaded that the complainants had to put in use approx. 3500 Dhirams on account of various expenses due to which they suffered a loss of Rs.70,000/- in total and apart from this, the complainants also suffered inconvenience due to non-providing of facilities, as agreed upon and they could not visit few places due to scarcity of time for seeking bookings and transfer.  The matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party and even a legal notice was sent to it, but to no avail.  Hence, this compliant has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

 

4]             Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party through regd. post, which has been received back with remarks ‘refusal’.  Refusal is a valid service and none appeared for the Opposite Party despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.9.2019.

 

5]             Complainants led evidence in support their contentions.

6]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record.

 

7]             Taking into notice the fact that the present complaints initially were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, against which Appeals No.87/2019 & 88/20219 have been filed by the complainants, which were allowed vide order dated 16.7.2019 while remanding the cases back to this Forum to decide afresh on merits after issuing notice to the Opposite Party.   It is also noticed that the OPs despite service of the notice in the appeals did not appear and thus were proceeded exparte. 

 

8]             After having received both the complaint cases, as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, due notices of the complaints were issued to the OP in both the cases, which have been received back with report of ‘Refusal”.  Refusal being a perfect service, the OP was proceeded exparte, which very fairly establish that the OP are reluctant to contest the present matter, which further raises reasonable presumption in favour of the complainants that the matter agitated in both the complaints is genuine one and the OP has nothing to defend the duly sworn allegations set-out by the complainants in the present complaints. 

 

9]             It is well proved on record that due bookings were made for six persons through OP for visiting Dubai on Tourist Visa  at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per person. Only Four persons, out of total Six persons, have filed the present complaints with two complainants each, for the same cause of action which accrued in their favour out of the same transaction. The descriptive pleadings, supported by duly sworn affidavits of the complainants reveals that the complainants face harassment overseas due to deficient services rendered by the OP.  The messages exchanged between the parties (Ann.C-2 Colly. Page 14-16) reveals that time & again the Opposite Party was approached to timely arrange for the committed services, which the Opposite Party apparently failed to provide and thus complainants suffered financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment.  The deficient services rendered by the Opposite Party not only forced the complainants to arrange at their own certain facilities, but thereafter also forced to file the present complaint to get reimbursement of the amount spent overseas, which as per the complainants was included in the package obtained from the Opposite Party.

 

10]           It has been simultaneously gathered from the record of both the complaint cases No.115/2019 & 114/2019 that identical documents (receipts) i.e. Ann.C-3 Page No.17, 18 & 19 with regard to Dhow Cruise Dinner Creek, Desert Safari & Dubai Aquarium and Underwater Zoo have been placed on record in both the complaints, claiming similar amount in both of them.  However, in complaint case No.115/2019 certain other bills at Page No.20 & 21 towards Taxi Fare and at Page at Page No.22 (receipt) of Ferrari World have also been placed.  The bills placed on record in both the above mentioned complaint cases cogently establishes that the said expenses have been incurred by the complainants  (in both the complaints) for six persons, jointly in toto and not individually, whereas the two complaints have been filed by Four complainanst i.e. two each.

 

11]           It is pertinent to mention that in CC No.115/2019, the complainants have claimed refund of Rs.1,04,000/- as well as Rs.70,000/- spent by them, along with interest and compensation, whereas in CC No.114/2019, the complainants have claimed refund of Rs.1,04,000/- as well as Rs.30,000/- spent by them, along with interest and compensation.  Admittedly, the package of tour in question was Rs.52,000/- per person, so against such package amount, the claim of the complainants for Rs.70,000/- & Rs.30,000/- respectively is certainly excessive and farfetched to believe that such facilities were also included in the package of Rs.52000/- per person including the air-fare.  But definitely the record reveals that the complainants have been not only suffered mental, physical harassment, but also suffered financial harassment for which the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainants.  Since the complainants have not produced the details of the value of Dhiram in Indian currency on the day they spent the amount, so it is hard to believe what amount they exactly spent for the committed services.  To end up the matter, we deem it proper to grant a lump-sum amount of Rs.10000/- to each of the complainants towards the expenditure incurred and for the harassment suffered due to deficient act on the part of Opposite Party.

 

12]           Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case and discussion, as made in preceding paragraphs, the present complaint as well as the connected complaint case No.114/2019 – Mahender Singh & Another Vs. M/s Bhatia Travel, both are allowed against the OP with direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10000/- to each of the complainants (who filed the complaint) towards the expenditure incurred and for the harassment suffered by them.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a total litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.

                This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

 

13]           A copy of this order be placed in connected complaint case No.114 of 2019 – Mahender Singh & Another Vs. M/s Bhatia Travel, which shall be deemed to form a part of that order.                 

                The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

3^rd January, 2020                                    

                                             

     Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER