| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.14/2011 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal R/o 3, Deepali, Pitampura, Delhi- 110034 ….Complainant Versus M/s Carnation Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Z-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016 ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 10.01.2011 Date of Order : 18.08.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Briefly put, the Complainant Sh. Pradeep Kr. Mittal took a tour package for five family members including his infant for Switzerland and France .The complainant paid consideration of Rs.5,58,000/- to M/s Carnation Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) for the same. The tour was scheduled from 21.06.2010 to 01.07.2010.
- It is stated that OP provided the detailed tour itinerary to the Complainant only on 20.06.2010 .As the tour was to commence on 21.06.2010, complainant and his family did not get sufficient time to plan their personal requirements etc. It is stated that OP as per the tour itinerary promised a wonderful tour of Switzerland and France. However, OP failed to provide visit to Rhine Falls on 21.06.2010. OP also failed to provide taxi/bus service and no transport was made available despite promise, to take the Complainant and his family members to Rhine Falls as per Itinerary. It is next averred that OP did not provide accommodation at a Four Star Hotel or above at Lucerne. Rather, their stay was arranged at an inferior category hotel which was not the same as mentioned in the travel details given to the complainant.
- It is next stated that after reaching at Nice, the Complainant was not allowed to check-in by the concerned Hotel for about two and half hours, which led to lot of mental, physical harassment and inconvenience as a child was accompanying the complainant. It is stated that nightmare of the complainant did not over with that as OP again failed to arrange and provide the taxi for tour to Monte Carlo and the Complainant had to spend 150 Euro for the taxi services for the tour of Monte Carlo. It is further stated that the Swiss Railway Pass provided by OP to the Complainant expired on 25.06.2010 and OP failed to provide taxi services for the journey from Nice to Paris. Therefore, the Complainant had to spend 350 Euros for the said journey.
- It is further averred that the stay at Paris was totally unsatisfactory due to poor planning. OP issued a voucher for a show in Paris which was only for adults, despite having the knowledge that a child was accompanying the complainant. The Complainant missed the said show, a fact which clearly proves the deficiency of OP in poor planning and executing the tour of the Complainant. It is stated that OP also failed to mention the details about the infant on any voucher and the Complainant on every occasion during the stay and journey had to give explanation everywhere that the infant is the son of the Complainant. The Complainant therefore faced grave harassment and humiliation on this account.
- It is next stated that as per the itinerary the flight from Paris was scheduled to reach Delhi through Vienna on the night of 01.07.2010, by Austrian Airways. However, the taxi picked-up the complainant and his family members from Paris only at 09.15 a.m. believing the flight to be at 12.40 p.m. However, the time of 12.40 p.m. as informed to the Complainant was regarding departure from Vienna and not Paris. Therefore, the complainant and his family missed the scheduled flight. OP again failed to execute the revised schedule and the complainant from his own funds had to arrange for return to Delhi via Frankfurt. Due to the said confusion, Complainant reached Delhi on 02.07.2010 instead of 01.07.2010. The Complainant during the said gap of one day had to spend night in some local hotel and had to spend extra money on meals and taxi etc.
- It is next stated that the Complainant informed OP regarding the deficient services by way of letter dated 10.07.2010 and OP acknowledged its deficiencies. However, OP only refunded Rs. 70,394.45/- by way of Cheque towards refund of Air Tickets from Paris to Delhi and some meal supplements. OP failed to refund other dues demanded by the Complainant. The Complainant accepted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 70,394.45/- under protest and not towards full and final settlement for its dues and claims.
- Aggrieved by the circumstances above ,it is prayed that OP be directed to pay sum of Rs. 4,88,000/- to the complainant towards refund/return of the tour package and OP be further directed to pay sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards the refund/return of expenses borne by the Complainant during the tour on taxis, meals etc. Additionally, OP be directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental and financial harassment and also pay the cost of litigation to the Complainant.
- OP resisted the complaint and filed its reply stating inter-alia that as the complainant was interested in a personalized tour with his family, a personalized package was arranged as per the requirements of the complainant in respect to accommodation, places of visit etc. OP prepared the Itinerary for such a package tour for a total sum of
Rs. 5,76,400/- for four adults and one infant. However, the complainant insisted to pay Rs. 5,58,000/- and persuaded the OP to arrange the package for the said tour within the said amount. Since, it was not a group tour but was a personalized tour, the entire said package was prepared as per the requirement, suitability and desire of the Complainant keeping the budget for the said package offered and agreed by the complainant.
- The Swiss Rail Pass for seven transfers for the Complainant and his family was provided and handed over to the Complainant along with all hotel vouchers and Air Tickets. It is denied that OP failed to provide visit to the complainant to Rhine Fall on 21.06.2010. OP submits that as per the schedule of sightseeing, which is mentioned in the Itinerary the tour was provided and availed by the complainant and his family members. It is next stated that OP had issued the hotel vouchers to the Complainant prior to the said trip on receipt of tour package charges, giving name of the hotels as per the requirements and budget of the Complainant. It is also stated that prepaid service voucher in respect to the tour ‘Gateway to Rhine Falls, Zurich, Switzerland’ was handed over to the Complainant and the Complainant was to hand over the said service voucher to the tour operator at its departure point as clearly mentioned in the service voucher. It is next stated that if the complainant and his family members failed to report on time at the said departure point and failed to hand over the said service voucher to the local representative, OP cannot be blamed, if the complainant and his family had failed to avail the said tour.
- It is further stated that Complainant was provided with hotel vouchers and the hotels have their own check-in and check-out timings. Hence, OP cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever if there was any kind of delay in providing room by the concerned hotel to the complainant at Nice or at any other place. As regards OP’s failure to provide taxi for tour to Monte Carlo, it is stated that as per the Itinerary OP was not supposed to provide the alleged taxi service because the Complainant had opted for Swiss Rail Passes with seven transfers and thus had to utilize the said Swiss Rail Passes to visit these places. Since, the complainant and his family members used the said Swiss Rail Passes for their own convenience to visit the places of their own choice and thereby making seven trips the said rail passes were liable to expire after all the seven transfers were utilized.
- It is further stated that the stay of the complainant and his family in said hotel at Paris was arranged with the consent and requirement as well as budget of the complainant and precisely because of the same, OP had also reduced the cost of the package. It is further stated that regarding the show it was well within the knowledge of the complainant that it was a very popular show for adults only and as such, OP cannot be blamed if the complainant and his family missed the said show. It is also stated that complainant never made any complaint during the said tour and it was only after completion of the tour the complainant had started raising such kind of false and baseless allegations, which are nothing but an afterthought and bundle of lies.
- OP submits that on account of some misunderstanding and bonafide human error, the pickup and transfer time of the complainant and his family from the Paris Hotel to Airport were not as per the scheduled timing of the Flight. It was because of the same, OP had already paid entire amount of purchased tickets, taxi and food charges even though bearing loss of cost of those five unutilized air tickets on account of missing of the said flight of the complainant.
- Reiterating the fact, that there has been no deficiency in service on part of OP and the entire package was arranged as per requirement of the complainant and his family, which was used and enjoyed it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
- Evidence and written arguments on behalf of parties are placed on record. Submissions made on behalf of OP are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
- It is seen that the Complainant alleged OP to be deficient in service on many accounts during the tour organized by OP. Complainant’s allegation that the tour itinerary was provided to the complainant a day prior to the scheduled date of the tour, his allegation as regards failure to provide visit to Rhine Fall, to provide accommodation at four star hotel or above as promised, OP’s failure to arrange and provide the taxi for tour to Monte Carlo and for the journey from Nice to Paris, have all remained unsubstantiated. Complainant has not filed any evidence to substantiate his averments. Complainant has also alleged that an infant was accompanying the complainant but OP failed to mention the details about the infant on any voucher and the complainant during his stay and journey had to explain the hotels and other places that infant was accompanying the complainant, which led to harassment and humiliation. This allegation of the complainant is apparently false as vouchers appended at page no. 14, 17, 18 etc of the complaint clearly mention that a child of seven years was accompanying the complainant and in certain vouchers it is stated that an extra bed for the child has been arranged.
- Moreover, it is seen that OP due to oversight and bonafide human error made a mistake of misinforming the complainant as regards the flight from Paris to Delhi. OP acknowledging the mistake refunded Rs 70,394.45/- towards Air Tickets from Paris to Delhi, meal supplement and taxi charges to the complainant.
- Therefore, in view of the fact that no contemporary evidence has been adduced by the complainant as regards averments made in the complaint, no message, mails or complaints by any other mode are alleged to have been made during the tour. We are of the opinion that complainant has not been able to establish deficiency in service on counts other than admitted by OP. Moreover, OP has refunded Rs. 70,394.45/- on account of its bonafide mistake. Therefore, contentions raised by the complainant do not find favour with this Commission. Hence, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
