Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/2395/2017

Mr P.V.Reveendran Nambiar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ORN Trip Factory Private Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 24.08.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 05.03.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.2395/2017

DATED THIS THE 5^th MARCH OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.P.V.Reveendran Nambiar

S/o Chandukutty Nambiar, Aged about 52 years,

no.185, Karthik Nagar, Doddanekkundi,

Marathahalli, Bengaluru-37.

 

By Advocates

M/s.Sebastian & Co.,      

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. M/s.ORN Trip Factory Pvt. Ltd., A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956,

Having its office at:

11^th floor, New Brigade

Business Centre, N1 Block, Embassy Manyata Business

Tech Park, Nagawara,

Bengaluru-45.

Rep by its Managing Director.

 

2. Mr.Vinay Gupta, Director
3. Mr.Rajesh Krishnaswamy Moorti, Director,
4. Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Director

M/s.ORN Trip Factory Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its office at:

11^th floor, New Brigade

Business Centre, N1 Block, Embassy Manyata Business

Tech Park, Nagawara,

Bengaluru-45.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 to 4 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2, 3 & 4 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to refund a sum of Rs.2,40,900/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment. Further direct them to pay Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and cost and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he was interested to take up a foreign trip along with his family. Based on a preliminary enquiry from the Complainant, Op representative approached him, stating about the reputation and experience of Op.no.1 commanded in conducting tours worldwide tours also about the cost effectiveness of the tours conducted by Op.no.1 company compared to the global leaders operating in the tourism industry.  It is the case of the Complainant that, he was assured by Op.no.1 representative that an Australian Tourist Visa could be obtained within 10-15 days. Being impressed with the itinerary shared and explained to him by Op representative, Complainant has made a total payment of Rs.5,80,000/- for six day trip to be undertaken by his family consisting of himself, his wife and two children. The entire amount towards the trip was paid in multiple transactions with the amount being paid in full on 23.03.17 for the trip to be undertaken from 24.04.17. The Complainant further submits that, initially, the Op.no.1 representative agreed to take up the Visa processing on behalf of the Complainant and his family and subsequently it was communicated to the Complainant that the Visa had to be processed by himself but was assured that the Visa processing would be completed well in advance to the travel dates. To the utter shock and dismay of the Complainant, the paperwork and other formalities at the Australian High Commission were not in tandem with the assurance of Op.no.1 representative and finally the Visas were obtained as late as on 05.05.17. The Complainant further submits that, as early as on 15.04.17, he was in touch with Op.no.1 regarding the rescheduling of the trip because of non-receipt of the Visa within the timeframe suggested by Op.no.1. Op.no. vide email dtd.18.04.17 has assured the Complainant that they have already placed a request for rescheduling the hotel reservations to 28.05.17. The paper work undertaken by the Op was below standard and the Complainant was in constant touch with Op to have the spelling mistakes in the name to be rectified. The Complainant further submits that, as soon as the Complainant realized that the Visa procedure would take longer than anticipated and that there was no likelihood of getting the Visas within the travel date, the Complainant has requested to place his travel tickets booked on Singapore Airlines and Virgin airlines on open status as early as on 22.04.17 by an email to Op, who has assured the Complainant that the ticket of the Complainant is in open status. The Complainant further submits that, he was utterly shocked to receive an email dtd.27.04.17 from Op.no.1 stating that the Complainants tickets were booked in Virgin Australia Flight scheduled to departure on 28.04.17. Op, only after receiving this email has sent an email to the airline on 27.04.17 asking the procedure for the ticket to be kept in open status. Vide email dtd.22.04.17, the Op had assured the Complainant that the ticket was placed in open status. This clearly indicates that the Op has not acted with the diligence and has failed to perform her part of the duty towards the Complainant thus causing a financial loss to the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that, vide email dtd.27.04.17, the airline has informed the Op regarding the procedure to be followed for cancellation of the tickets vide email dtd.27.04.17. After the Complainant and his family received the Visa for the tour on 05.05.17, Op.no.1 vide email dtd.09.05.17 has communicated to the Complainant that an additional sum of Rs.2,40,900/- would have to be paid by Complainant for the trip to be taken from 15.05.17. When the Visa formalities were not happening within the time frame suggested by Op, the Complainant has immediately communicated the same to Op and also informed them well in advance to place the ticket in open status and the Op was duty bound to also make necessary arrangements for the cancellation of the hotel reservations at the earliest. In the email dtd.09.05.17, the Op has admitted that the hotel cancellations were made only one day prior to the date of check-in for which reason no amount was refunded by the hotel which clearly demonstrated the deficiency of service on the part of Op.no.1 and their lack of expertise in providing effective packages to consumers. The Complainant further submits that, he was in constant touch with the officials of the Op for re-charting the itinerary after he got the Visa from the Australian embassy. During his interactions with Op.no.1 on 8^th and 9^th May 2017, it was informed to the Complainant that he would be accommodated on the trip starting from 10.05.17. Accordingly, the Complainant has made necessary arrangements at his office and also his sons have reapplied for their leaves from college and school. After the Complainant had made the adequate arrangements for the trip, Op.no.1 has informed the Complainant as late as on 09.05.17 that the vacation was to commence from 14.05.17. Upon verification by the Complainant, the information shared by the Op.no.1 was a terrible mismatch arising out of copy and paste text and when the Complainant brought this to the notice of Op, the Op have intimated the Complainant on 11.05.17 that the vacation would finally commence from 15.05.17. The last minute dilly dallying on the part of Op and the errors caused by Ops have cost the Complainant a lot of money which constrained him to make last minute ticket purchases at higher prices for no fault of his. Even after confirmation of the trip, Op had been sending contradictory messages/mails regarding the trip contrary to the agreed itinerary causing great amount of mental stress to Complainant. The whole experience of dealing with the Op and the lack of empathy and expertise in the field of conducting holidays has made the vacation experience of the Complainant and his family a sheer nightmare. Being aggrieved by these acts, Complainant issued legal notice dtd.03.06.17 calling upon the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.2,40,900/- incurred by him for the rescheduling charges which could have been wholly avoided if the Op had acted with due diligence. In turn, Op vide email dtd.10.06.17 accepting the terms of the legal notice and it has proposed that it would refund a sum of Rs.1,20,450/- via NEFT to the account of the Complainant and would also offer 10 vouchers of Rs.12,045/- each to the Complainant i.e. in all a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,40,900/- to compensate the Complainant for the deficiency of service. The Complainant has accepted the terms of the offer provided the amount is transferred within 15.06.17 and that the vouchers are also provided on or before 15.06.17. But the commitment has not been honoured by the Ops as promised. Hence prays to allow the complaint

 

3. Inspite of notice served on Op.no.1 to 4, they did not appear, hence placed exparte.

 

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 10 documents. Heard the learned counsel for the Complainant.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Op.no.1 to 4, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?     
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  In the instant case, though the notice served on Op.no.1 to 4, they did not appear and filed version. Under such circumstances, non-appearance and non-filing of version draw an adverse inference that, the Ops have admit the claim of the Complainant in the light of the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg, wherein it is held that, “Non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint”. Anyhow, we place reliance on the available materials on record for just disposal of this complaint.

 

          8. We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleadings of the Complainant goes to show that, he has paid an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- and also Rs.2,40,900/- in favour of Ops in respect of his foreign tour as well as for other sundry expenses. It is also not in dispute that, authorized representative of Op.no.1 did not facilitate the Complainant to get Visa well within time. In this context, the schedule foreign tour was postponed by one or the other pretext. Being disgusted, Complainant has sought for refund of money paid by him. The disputed amount is only with regard to Rs.2,40,900/-. Op never denied for re-payment of the said amount which can be seen on going through the contents of document no.10 at inkpage no.73 and another document at inkpage no.74. Both documents reads thus:

(1)

Email dtd.10.06.17 from one Vinoyi of Cropex to Sudeep of Op.

Dear Mr. Sudeep,

This refers to the legal notice served to you by our advocate, Mr.M.A.Sebastain asking you to compensate the substantial loss incurred by us to the tune of Rs.2,40,900/- while rescheduling the Overseas tour (Sydney/Melbourne) booked by the family of Mr.Reveendran Nambiar, along with his legal charges.

As you have informed us that you are ready to compensate the loss by way of paying us 50% of the loss incurred i.e. Rs.1,20,450/- by way of cash and remaining 50%, i.e. Rs.1,20,450/- by way of Credit Note for future travel, we accept the same for mutual convenience.

Please note that you will have to complete the payment of Cash and provide us with a suitable Credit Note before 15.06.17. Please mention clearly as to what are the bookings/reservations that could be done with the Credit Note that you will be providing us with.

On competition of the above transactions/use of Credit Note amount, this matter will be treated as closed.

Thebank account details of the main person in the travel group are given below:

Name: Mr.P.V.Reveendran Nambiar

Account No.:8650101001300

Bank name: Canara Bank

Bank Branch: Vibuthipura branch

IFSC: CNRB-0008650

 

(2)

Email dtd.10.06.17 from Sudeep of Op to Vinoyi of Cropex

Dear Mr.Vinoyi,

Thank you for your email. We will initiate the transfer of Rs.1,20,450/- to the mentioned bank account today via NEFT.

We will also issue 10 vouchers each of the value of Rs.12,045/-. Each voucher can be redeemed for a trip booked with us which should be worth the amount of the original trip booked. These vouchers can also be redeemed by members of your friends and family and will have a validity of 5 years from the date of issue.

We will send a confirmation mail with the transaction details and the voucher details once processed.

 

9. If the contents of above two documents are strictly construed, one thing is clear that, Op.no.1 has undertaken to transfer an amount of Rs.1,20,450/- via NEFT, further they will issue 10 vouchers each of the value of Rs.12,045/- stating that, the said vouchers can be redeemed for a trip booked with them which should be worth the amount of the original trip booked. These vouchers can also be redeemed by members of Complainant friends and family and will have a validity of 5 years from the date of issue. With regard to the vouchers are concerned, Complainant did not agree, which can be seen on going through the document found at inkpage 75.

 

          10. Now, the only grievance of the Complainant is that, in spite of repeated requests, Ops neither send the said amount by way of NEFT nor the remaining amount by way of other modes. To rebut the contents of the complaint and also affidavit filed by the Complainant, Ops did not appear. It appears that, Ops are watching the proceedings of this complaint by sitting somewhere else. At this stage, we are of the opinion that, Ops are found to be negligent in discharging of their duty i.e. to say the deficiency of service on their part.  When such being the fact, Complainant is entitled for the disputed amount of Rs.2,40,900/-. With regard to the compensation is concerned, Complainant has sought for Rs.1 lakh. Looking to the laxity on the part of Ops, in not considering the request of the Complainant, we fixed an amount of Rs.25,000/- being the compensation towards mental agony and hardship. The cost of litigation is fixed for an amount of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

           11. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.

 

2. Op.no.1, 2, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,40,900/- to the Complainant.

 

3. Further, we direct Ops to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant.

 

4. Since, Op.no.1 is the company represented by its Managing Director, we fastened the liability on it, to pay the said amount of Rs.2,40,900/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization. 

 

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 5^th March 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.P.V.Reveendran Nambiar, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.no.1	Bank statements
Doc.no.2 to 8	Trail email correspondences dtd.18.04.17, 22.04.17, 27.04.17, 09.05.17, 15.05.17, 10.05.17, 11.05.17
Doc.no.9	Legal notice dtd.03.06.17
Doc.no.10	Trail email dtd.10.06.17

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT