CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.195/2009
SHRI HARJINDER PAL CHAWLA,
R/O B-182, ASSOTECH THE NEST
CROSSING REPUBLIC, NH-24,
GHAZIABAD-201016
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S FANTASY TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.
208-9, MADHUBAN BUILDING,
55, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:19.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
Complainant booked a package tour programme for himself and his family namely his wife and daughter from OP for tour of Delhi-Chennai-Port Blair-Chennai-Kuala Lumpur-Genting-Singapore-Delhi. The case of the complainant is that the services arranged for package tour was not consistent with the prevalent practices and also with their own commitments and suffered from the following glaring defects:-
September 22-23, 2007 – The flight from Delhi landed at 20:30 in Chennai and the connecting flight was on the next morning at 06:30, a gap of 10 hours but no arrangement was made for their comfortable stay.
September 25, 2007 – The flight back from Port Blair reached Chennai at 11:00 hours and departure for Kuala Lumpur was at 23:30 hours i.e. after gap of 12 hours and again there was no any arrangement for their stay. Complainant called back to the tour package provider office which made a promise to look into but did not do anything.
September 23-24, 2007 – The stipulated stay was for one night of 23rd only but due to non availability of connecting flight on 24th, complainant and his family had to stay there for which it is customary for the airlines/package providers to arrange for stay of the passengers in such a situation. Complainant pleaded a lot with the tour provider to make arrangement within the package, but the same was not provided. Complainant had to incur expenses and to stay at a lower level hotel.
September 26, 2007 – On coming out from Kuala Lumpur Airport, complainant found that there was nobody to receive them. Some uniformed man indicated us to a shelter nearby to wait for our pick up van. Within about ten minutes, complainant’s name was called and a vehicle to pick up them came. The driver assured that he was sent by the tour facilitator. He even dialed a number over his mobile to facilitate a talk to the person/s sending him to complainant and the person on line identified himself as Mr. Aruldass as a person to be in touch who offered his apology for not being on the spot as he had to go outstation the previous night. The person on line further told complainant that the man present has been arranged and sent by him but complainant had to make payment to the driver for the fare that would be reimbursed by him. Believing it to be a gentleman’s promise, we did likewise and were dropped at the hotel by that cab driver paying him 380 ringgits and got a receipt.
When complainant presented the exchange voucher for the accommodation, the receptionist told us that there was no booking for them. A stranger standing nearby introduced himself as an agent of M/s Tourland Travel confirmed the statement of the receptionist. We did not had enough spare money being a paid trip to meet the expenses of our own. The receptionist there went an extra mile to help them and called the office of the named tour facilitator locally on the telephone numbers with her as also the ones provided by their so called agent, who later on driven us to Genting leg of the tour.
After a struggle for over two hours the named tour facilitator on seeing the paper which the complainant was carrying and faxed to them by the hotel, relented somehow to tell that kind receptionist to accommodate us on the same terms as specified but disputing at the same time pick up part of the deal disowning the cab driver and the money spent by complainant towards that and terming that cab driver as a cheat.
Complainant tried to contact their package provider but he could not be contacted. Complainant wrote a letter to OP on 10.10.2007 and persistently followed the matter up through telephonic calls to his office with dealing clerk/assistant. Finally complainant sent a legal notice on 29.9.08 to OP.
Complainant has alleged deficiency in the tour programme. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay a compensation not less than 5-times the cost of the package tour that comes to about 8 lakhs.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
September 22-23, 2007 – The flight from Delhi landed at 20:30 in Chennai and the connecting flight was on the next morning at 06:30, a gap of 10 hours but no arrangement was made for their comfortable stay. Admittedly there is nothing in exhibit Ex-1 to show that OP was to make arrangement for stay as the complainant has not opted for it.
September 25, 2007 – OP has specifically stated in the reply that as per tour programme the said flight was to land at Chennai at 21:30 and the connecting flight was at 05:00 and there was no arrangement for stay in Chennai. Admittedly there is nothing in exhibit Ex-1 to show that OP was to make arrangement for stay as the complainant has not opted for it.
September 23-24, 2007 – As per tour programme OP was to provide for stay of one day only. Connecting flight was not available because of bad weather as a result the complainant was to stay in Port Blair one more day but as per tour programme in such a situation it was not the responsibility of OP to provide the accommodation hence there was no question of providing the accommodation for forced stay of one day at Port Blair.
September 26, 2007 – Complainant was to be transferred from the airport of Kuala Lumpur to the city by SIC(Seat in Coach Basis) and not by any private vehicle. Complainant was in fact cheated by a road driver and for that OP cannot be blamed.
So far as the facility of accommodation at the hotel is concerned, there is a force in the contention of OP that complainant reached the hotel before the booking time in Kuala Lumpur. As per practice room is booked from 12.00 noon as is the standard practice world wide and knowing fully well the complainant had opted for the room in that manner as per the tour programme. Since complainant had reached much prior to 12.00 noon, he was politely informed that his booking was from 12 noon. Complainant was politely informed that booking was from 12.00 noon and he was accommodated in that hotel. There is no question of receptionist having pity on him. Nobody will provide accommodation in good hotel in foreign country to a person out of pity. It is not the case of complainant that he has paid any amount for the stay. There is not doubt that complainant reached the hotel before the booking time so there was no question of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
