Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1003/2019

Varinder Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SOTC Travel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.D. Sharma

15 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1003/2019
Date of Institution	:	14/10/2019
Date of Decision	:	15/02/2022

 

Varinder Kumar Jain son of late Sh. Harbans Lal Jain resident of H.No.521, Sector 15, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s SOTC Travel Ltd., SCO 147-148, Level 1^st (above LG Showroom), Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008 through its Manager-Sh. Harshdeep Singh.
2. M/s SOTC Travel Ltd., through its Managing Director, SOTC Travel Ltd., 324, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1004/2019
Date of Institution	:	14/10/2019
Date of Decision	:	15/02/2022

 

Dr. Ravi Ghai son of Sh. Raj Kumar Ghai resident of H.No.529, Sector 2, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s SOTC Travel Ltd., SCO 147-148, Level 1^st (above LG Showroom), Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008 through its Manager-Sh. Harshdeep Singh.
2. M/s SOTC Travel Ltd., through its Managing Director, SOTC Travel Ltd., 324, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. G.D. Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned two consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.1003 of 2019 titled as Varinder Kumar Jain Vs. M/s SOTC Travel Ltd. & Anr.
3.     The facts in brief are that in the first week of February 2019, Branch Incharge of the OPs approached the complainant and his friend Dr. Ravi Ghai regarding “The Summer 2019 Budget Tour 2019 Best of Switzerland 7 days” and in this regard he also received email on 4.2.2019.  In response the complainant in all deposited ₹2,68,916/- and undertook the aforesaid tour from 16.5.2019 to 22.5.2019. Averred the complainant was assured and promised regarding Golden Pass Line Ride and about its scenic beauty from Gstad to Montreux.  However, the said ride was not executed properly and the complainant was told to dis-embark after 2 stations at Chateau-d’oex and was provided only 18 minutes ride which otherwise was supposed to be of 1 hour and 21 minutes from Gstad to Montreux.  The complainant sent emails to the OPs with regard to above and in response received cash back of ₹4,200/- that too after a delay of more than two months. Further, the OPs vide email dated 13.8.2019 instead of 3-star hotel, offered Patong studio apartment or similar budget hotel and demanded more money for upgradation. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
4.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and admitted that the complainant undertook the scheduled tour and paid the total amount of ₹2,68,916/-.  However, the OPs denied that the complainant was ever assured regarding Golden Pass Line Ride from Gstad to Montreux.  Maintained Patong Studio Apartment is a basic three star hotel and the option of upgradation was at the asking of the complainant which was not compulsory. However, the complainant did not avail the offer of 4 days free holiday and never requested for the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
5.     Replication was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated. Averred that the brochure only mentioned the station of boarding as Gstad and there was no mention of disembarkment. It was nowhere mentioned that the ride would be from Gstad to Chateau-d’oex only.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including written arguments.
8.     Per pleadings of parties, facts with regard to availing of tour package by complainant on payment of requisite consideration are admitted by the parties. The complainant is basically aggrieved against non-providing the golden pass line ride from Gastad to Montreux by the OPs.
9.     It has been urged on behalf of the complainant that in Switzerland trip, Golden Pass Line Ride was major attraction in terms of scenic beauty, but, since he was told to dis-embark just after two stations at Chateau-d’oex, therefore, he was robbed of the chance to experience the said beauty and thus the OPs indulged in deficiency in service.
10.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs argued that neither it was anywhere mentioned in the brochure (Annexure C-4) nor the complainant was ever assured/promised regarding Golden Pass Line ride from Gstad to Montreux.
11.     Annexure C-1 is copy of the email dated 4.2.2019 whereby the OPs under the heading sightseeing, amongst other things mentioned Ride on the scenic Golden Pass Train. Annexure C-4 is the brochure of the OPs whereby at Page 27 it was claimed “Today, drive to the stunning village of Gstad and ride on the world’s most scenic railway route – The Golden Pass line.”
12.     No doubt, in none of these documents of the OPs it was mentioned that the said ride was to end at Chateau d’oex or at Montreux. However, we are of the view that OP-SOTC is a prominent name in the field of arranging tours and travels and were, therefore, duty bound to provide each and every detail to the customers to avoid any anomaly at later stage. Hence, the act of OPs in not clearly mentioning the exact route (e.g. boarding and disembarking stations) or the duration of the journey on the scenic Golden Pass Train in itself is sufficient to prove deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.
13.     The OPs do not deny that in Switzerland, Golden Pass Line Ride is major attraction in terms of scenic beauty. It is not uncommon to see that whilst soliciting tour packages, a very rosy picture is painted in front of the prospective customers and believing those the customers book the same. Visiting such places is once in a life time opportunity and are memories to cherish for lifetime. It requires a lot of planning and one has to part with hefty amount to enjoy the same.  After seeing the brochure of the OPs, the complainant must have also planned and visualized his journey, especially the scenic Golden Pass Line Ride. However, due to gaffe at the end of OPs, complainant was deprived of the chance to enjoy the scenic beauty of full ride and it must have left a sour taste. Hence, the OPs need to compensate the complainant adequately.
14.     So far as the question of delay in giving cash back to the complainant is concerned, learned counsel for the OPs, at the time of arguments, admitted the same. Therefore, OPs are also liable to compensate the complainant for the same.
15.     As far as the plea of the complainant that the OPs failed to provide him with three star hotel is concerned, stand of the OPs is that the offered Patong Studio Apartment is a basic three star hotel. Otherwise also, since the said facility was not requested/availed by the complainant, therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs to that extent.
16.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay a global compensation of ₹35,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment to him in not providing the full ride as well as for delay in payment of cash back, as detailed above;
2. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

17.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
18.     The other consumer complaint, mentioned above, is also partly allowed with similar reliefs.
19.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/02/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President