Complainant Dinesh Kumar Agrawal filed this complaint for claim of Rs. 4,25,357/- including compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation cost.
2 The case of the complainant is that he accepted tour package of O.P. M/s SOTC Travel Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The O.P. offered “Premium Grand Tour of Europe Package” for Rs. 5,90,209/- for two persons. The tour was schedule to start on 05.05.2016. All the amounts were paid through NEFT and Net Banking Transfer having UTR code dt. 21.03.2016 and 27.04.2016 from HDFC Bank at Chas, Bokaro for Rs. 1,03,000/- and Rs. 4,87,209/- respectively from the account of the complainant.
O.P. conveyed on phone and by E-mail that the earlier tour package has been cancelled and offered alternate tour “Premium Grand Tour of Europe with Zermatt” for 17 days and 16 nights and date of departure was 4th May from India to London.
It comes to knowledge from reliable sources that day-1 in London is 4th May 2016 only, not on 5th May. Complainant asked for cancellation or refund or offering a complementary tour to London considering a half day and a night sleep only.
Complainant came back from tour and lodged complaint over E-Mail and asked for claim. The O.P. tried to settle the claim by making payment of Rs. 14,643/- only vide cheque dt. 17.05.2016. Not satisfied with, the complaint is filed by the complainant with details of loss and harassment and the claim.
3 The following documents have been filed in support:-
Anx-1 to 1/14 Copies of E-mail correspondence between O.P. and complainant.
Anx-2 Copy of E-mail showing final settlement of the claim of the complainant on his return from the tour.
4 O.P. M/s SOTC Travel Service Pvt. Ltd. appeared and filed W.S. and it is submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the money was effected in Mumbai and no action has taken place at Bokaro.
It is further submitted that the alleged grievances with O.P. has been settled and O.P. had refunded portion of the fee collected from the complainant against the services he would not have been availed due to changes made by the complainant in the pre-approved plane and complainant had accepted the amount without any protest or demur as full and final settlement. So, the complainant be stopped from raising any further complaints.
It is also submitted that complainant never raised any service issue during the trip but raised it after availing and consuming the trip. Hence the complaint is nothing but it is after thought to extract money.
It is submitted that complainant was offered a alternative tour “Value All of Europe” keeping in view of tour program staring on 5th May 2016 but complainant has chosen himself the alternate tour” Grand Tour of Europe with Zermatt” which started on 4th may 2016 and on the request of the complainant several changes were made along with providing Schengen Viza to visit Germany which was not part of tour program booked by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the complaint is liable to dismissed with cost.
5 O.P. has filed following documents in support:-
Anx-A and A/1 Copy of Brochure of tour.
Anx-B to B/4 Copies of E-mails.
F I N D I N G S
6 We perused the record and hold that the complainant is a consumer as he had taken services of tour from O.P. on payment and grievances are dispute as consumer dispute.
7 The first objection of O.P. that since money paid by the complainant is effected in Mumbai, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
As per section 11 of C.P. Act, any part of cause of action shall give jurisdiction. Since complainant has paid money through his bank account at Chas Bokaro, therefore, it will be deemed to be a part of cause of action and we hold that this Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8 As regards the allegation of the complainant that O.P. has not provided the service as per terms and conditions, we perused Anx-1 series which are copies of E-mails containing conversations between the complainant and the O.P. sales people. It appears that the first agreed tour “Premium Grand Tour of Europe” which was schedule on 5th May2016 was cancelled and communicated to the complainant, an alternate tour program called “Premium Grand Tour of Europe with Zermatt” was offered with one day before i.e. on 4th May 2016. This was accepted by the complainant and tour was availed and service consumed.
After returned from the tour the complainant made some grievances regarding inconveniences caused during the tour and put a claim before O.P. who after consideration refunded Rs. 14,643/- against the services which could not be utilized by the complainant. The complainant even encashed the cheque without any protest.
9 The complainant has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lac) only for wrong tour for which he could not enjoyed London Trip. The Anx-1 series shows that the complainant fully knowing the tour program, accepted himself the alternate tour offer. So, the contention of the complainant is not proved and cannot be accepted. The other claims like expending money on sickness is not filed so, it cannot be accepted.
As regards inconvenience of Hotel room and quality of food and claim of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, the reply of O.P. is genuine because the control of room sizes and food are beyond their control as O.P. only provides services for tour. It is also mentioned in the Anx-A and A/1 filed by the O.P. to show. Therefore, O.P. cannot be held liable for those services as O.P. only suggests name of the Hotel and client has to choose the options. Hence this claim of the complainant also cannot be accepted as no such complaint is made to O.P. during the tour.
10 Anx-2 shows payment of Rs. 14,643/- which was refunded by the O.P. for non utilized services after claim by the complainant.
11 As regards compensation for mental agony during tour trip, we found that O.P. has not provided clear picture of the changed tour program. We also found that for some inconvenience, the complainant is himself liable for change of mind and some over speculation for the tour. But even though it is true, the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service for not disclosing all pros. and cons. of tour if any changes are made from the original tour program and then the complainant might had canceled the tour altogether.
12 Hence, at last we hold that O.P. is only liable for not providing detail pros. and cons. of changes in the original tour program and, liable to compensate the complainant.
13 Therefore, we allow the part claim for compensation only to Rs. 25,000/- less Rs. 14,643/- already paid.
We direct the O.P. M/s SOTC Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 10,357/- (Rs. Ten thousand three hundred fifty seven) only, (Rs. 25000 – Rs. 14643 = 10,357/-) rounded off to Rs. 10,360/- (Rs. Ten thousand three hundred sixty) only to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. One thousand) only.
All the payment must be paid within 60 days from passing of this order, failing which 15% (Fifteen percent) interest per annum will be payable till realization on part claim.
