Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/333/2013

N.Kanakavalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sree Vijalakshmi Travel Service, - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Yuvakumar

13 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 21.08.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 13.02.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP               : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.333/2013

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

                                 

1. N. Kanakavalli,

D/o. Mr. Nagarajan,

 

2. N. Kalpagam,

D/o. Mr. Nagarajan,

 

3. N. Mangalam,

D/o. Mr. Nagarajan,

 All residing at:-

No.4, Anjaneyapuram Main Road,

Kakkalur,

Tiruvallur – 602 003.                                                    .. Complainants.                                               

                                                                                               ..Versus..

 

M/s. Sree Vijayalakshmi Travel Services,

Rep. by its Proprietor

S. Jayaraman,

Old No.55/3, New No.12, Singarachari Street,

(Nalla Thambi Street Corner),

Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.                                                 ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for the complainants    :  M/s. S.P. Yuvankumar

Counsel for the opposite party  :  M/s. J. Viswanathan & another

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a compensation of Rs.6,08,100/- for breach of consumerism that took place on 15.06.2013 and to pay cost to the complainants.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainants submit that on seeing the advertisement of the opposite party, M/s. Sree Vijayalakshmi Travel Services related to North India Tour covering all Holy Hindu Shrine chosen for the trip and paid an advance of Rs.2,000/- each for the complainant totalling Rs.6,000/- on 25.03.2013 within an intention to worship in Vaishnavodevi Shrine. The complainants paid the entire amount on 30.05.2013.   The complainants approached the opposite party for booking  a horse or Doli for climbing to 14 kilometers high Vaishnavodevi Shrine.   For that, the opposite party told the complainants that booking is full.  In order to avoid the disappointment regarding the visit of Vaishnavodevi Shrine, the complainants booked Helicopter service on 16.05.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.8,100/-.   The complainants submit that as per the tour schedule the opposite party informed the complainants orally that the visit of Vaishnavodevi Shrine is on 16.06.2013 only. But the opposite party advanced the visit to the Vaishnavodevi Shrine on 15.06.2013.  Hence, the complainants could not avail the Helicopter service and requested the opposite party for making alternative arrangements.  After refusal by the opposite party, the complainants made arrangements by themselves in that unknown language and persons arranged the services of the Dollies and visited the Vaishnavodevi Shrine temple.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence, this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that admittedly, the tour was arranged.  The complainants voluntarily approached the opposite party and expressed their willingness to join the trip as per the schedule on 08.06.2013 and paid an advance of Rs.6,000/-.  The programme chart was given to the complainants on 30.05.2013 at the time of final payment.  As per the programme schedule, the visit to Vaishnavodevi Shrine is available by means of transport by Horse and Doli. The opposite party never made any arrangement to any of the passengers or tour travellers for the visit of Vaishnavodevi Shrine by means of Helicopter because, the opposite party is very particular regarding the climate/ weather maximum service with least expenditure.  The helicopter service also may fail due to poor climate.  Since the opposite party reached Katra on 15.06.2013 at 2 a.m. proceeded towards Vaishnavodevi Shrine Temple.   Hence, the complainants informed the opposite party about the Helicopter ticket booked by them had been cancelled suspended.   The helicopter service for few days from 15.06.2013 also suspended due to poor weather condition.  It is common that the tour schedule may change due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances.  The helipad available for launching the helicopter is more than 3 kms from the Vaishnavodevi Shrine Temple.  Initially, the complainants refused to join with the pilgrims and after ascertaining the non-availability and suspension of helicopter availed, the service of doli which was provided by the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service of any kind caused by the opposite party.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is filed.

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,08,100/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The opposite party filed his written arguments.  The complainants neither filed their written arguments nor come forward to advance their oral arguments in this case.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainants pleaded and contended that on seeing the advertisement of the opposite party, M/s. Sree Vijayalakshmi Travel Services related to North India Tour covering all Holy Hindu Shrine chosen for the trip and paid an advance of Rs.2,000/- each for the complainants totalling Rs.6,000/- on 25.03.2013 as per Ex.A3 with an intention to worship in Vaishnavodevi Shrine. The complainants paid the entire amount on 30.05.2013 as per Ex.A5.   The complainants approached the opposite party for booking  a horse or Doli for climbing to 14 kilometers high Vaishnavodevi Shrine.   For that, the opposite party told that the booking is full.   But on a careful perusal of records, the opposite party alone has taken the tour passengers to the said trip.  Further the contention of the complainant is that in order to avoid the disappointment regarding the visit of Vaishnavodevi Shrine, the complainants booked Helicopter service on 16.05.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.8,100/- of their own without the knowledge of the opposite party.   

6.     Further the contention of the complainants is that as per the tour schedule, the visit of Vaishnavodevi Shrine is on 16.06.2013.  But the opposite party advanced the visit to the Vaishnavodevi Shrine on 15.06.2013.  Hence, the complainants could not avail the Helicopter service and requested the opposite party for making alternative arrangements proves that the complainants suppressed the real fact of bad weather and cancellation of Helicopter.  Further the contention of the complainants is that after refusal by the opposite party, the complainants made arrangements by themselves in that unknown language and persons arranged the services of the Dollies and visited the Vaishnavodevi Shrine temple.   But it is seen that the complainants visited the temple under the guide of the opposite party with other pilgrims.  The act of the opposite party in taking the complainants under the guise of tour leaving them in a lurch caused great mental agony and hardship is imaginary.  The opposite parties also has not reimbursed the amount paid towards Helicopter charges.  The complainants are claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each for compensation with the Helicopter charges totalling of Rs.6,08,100/- with interest and cost.  But on a careful perusal of records, the complainants has not pleaded and proved that the arrangement of helicopter for the visit to Vaishnavodevi Shrine Temple by the opposite party.  Equally, the arrangement of Doli by the complainants themselves; is not acceptable because, the complainants had travelled and visited the Vaishnavodevi Shrine Temple along with the co-passengers of the tour.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that admittedly, the tour was arranged.  The complainants voluntarily approached the opposite party and expressed their willingness to join the trip as per the schedule Ex.A2 on 08.06.2013 and paid an advance amount of Rs.6,000/-.  The programme chart was given to the complainants on 30.05.2013 at the time of final payment.  As per the programme schedule, the visit to Vaishnavodevi Shrine is available by means of transport by Horse and Doli.  The opposite party never made any arrangement to any of the passengers or tour travellers for the visit of Vaishnavodevi Shrine by means of Helicopter because, the opposite party is very particular regarding the climate maximum service with least expenditure.  The helicopter service also may fail due to poor climate.  Since the opposite party reached Katra on 15.06.2013 at 2 a.m. proceeded towards Vaishnavodevi Shrine Temple.    While so, the complainants informed the opposite party about the Helicopter ticket booked by them was cancelled.  The helicopter service for few days from 15.06.2013 also suspended due to poor weather condition.  It is common that the tour schedule may change due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances.  The helipad available for launching the helicopter is more than 3 kms from the Vaishnavodevi Shrine Temple.  Initially, the complainants refused to join with the pilgrims and after ascertaining the non-availability and suspension of helicopter availed, the service of doli which was provided by the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service of any kind caused by the opposite party.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of February 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of tour prospectus issued by the opposite parties
Ex.A2		Copy of tour prospectus issued by the opposite parties
Ex.A3	25.03.2013	Copy of advance payment made by the complainants
Ex.A4	17.05.2013	Copy of helicopter service payment communications
Ex.A5	30.05.2013	Copy of final payment made by the complainants
Ex.A6	15.06.2013	Copy of Vaishnadevi Shrine visitor’s pass

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT