Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/217/2021

Manjeet Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Travel Talkies - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

21 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/217/2021
Date of Institution	:	01/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	21/10/2021

 

 

Manjeet Saini son of Sh. Gurjant Saini, aged about 28 years, r/o House No.454, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Travel Talkies, Regd. Office : VPO : Rampur, Keonthal, District & Tehsil : Shimla, Himachal Pradesh through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. The Humsour View Manali, Siyal Rd, Behind Tibetian Monastery, Siyal, Manali, Himachal Pradesh 175131 through its Branch Manager/Owner.

… Opposite Parties

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

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      Briefly stated allegations are, complainant was allured by the OPs into various tour packages, honeymoon packages and holiday packages and offered a 4 days 3 nights package.  OP-1 informed charges of the tour package as approximately ₹30,500/- for two couples.  OPs also sent photographs through WhatsApp showing the view from the balcony. Believing the same, complainant booked the package and paid ₹10,302/- on 15.12.2020.  OPs confirmed the booking for four adults having check in date as 25.12.2020 and check out as 28.12.2020. Averred, the complainant alongwith his wife and another coupled checked in at “The Humsour View Manali” as per booking schedule, but, the OPs failed to fulfil the assured commitments and neither the welcome drink nor the rooms as per image were provided. Despite requests of the complainant, nothing was done by the OP and rather they flatly refused to arrange the rooms. Left with no alternative, the complainant at his own arranged rooms in The Rudra Place and stayed there for two nights and paid ₹18,000/-. He also had to pay ₹9,500/- to M/s Modi Taxi Service. Averred due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the honeymoon trip was spoiled. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     Registered notices sent to OPs were presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OPs, therefore, vide order dated 5.7.2021 of this Commission, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
5.     Annexure C-1 is the photographs received by the complainant from the OPs on his WhatsApp whereby the OPs showed the view visible from the balcony. Annexure C-2 is the receipt whereby the complainant paid the amount of ₹10,302/-through his credit card. Annexure C-3 is the copy of voucher dated 17.12.2020 issued by OP-1 addressed to OP-2 to provide two rooms from 25^th to 28^th December 2020. Annexure C-7 is the copy of receipt dated 28.12.2020 issued by “The Rudra Palace”, Manali whereby the complainant paid ₹18,000/- to it for his stay. Annexure C-8 is the copy of receipt of Modi Taxi Services, Mashobra whereby the complainant paid ₹9,500/- to it for his trip to Manali.  Annexure C-9 is the copy of the email dated 2.2.2021 sent by the complainant to OP-1 whereby he narrated the harassment faced by him and sought refund and compensation. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his contentions.
6.     It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that based upon the projections of the OPs, he had booked the package for his honeymoon from 25.12.2020 to 28.12.2020 by paying the amount of ₹10,302/-. However, OPs failed to provide the promised services as welcome drinks were not provided, room service was poor and further instead of providing room with balcony view, as shown in the images sent to him through WhatsApp, he was provided with dirty corner room at back side of the hotel and despite requests they even failed to change the same.  Ultimately the complainant at his own arranged room in another hotel “The Rudra Place” by paying the amount of ₹18,000/- and ₹9,500/- for the taxi service. It has been further argued that due to act and conduct of OPs, complainant’s honeymoon plans went haywire and he had to look for another hotel room which caused a lot of harassment to him.
7.     On the other hand, in order to rebut the allegations of the complainant, it was obligatory for the OPs to have filed their written reply alongwith some cogent evidence. However, what to talk of rebutting the allegations, OPs did not put in appearance before this Commission and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them and proves that they have nothing to say in their defence qua the allegations made by the complainant. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the allegations of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.     It is important to note here that honeymoon holds special place and sentimental value in the lives of newlyweds who plan in advance after exploring and surfing various options and finally make the hotel, travel and other bookings as per their requirements and budget. All this is done to avoid any last minute hurdles so that they can enjoy each other’s company. Nowadays, it has become very common to see the newlyweds posting photographs of their hotel and places visited during their honeymoon. For them, it is a memory to cherish for life and couples get nostalgic remembering those. Here also, as is made out, complainant had made the hotel booking and paid the consideration in advance after going through the images sent to him on his WhatsApp whereby he was assured the view visible from his balcony, which, turned out to be farce and all his plans turned sour immediately upon reaching the hotel. Therefore, it was but natural for the complainant (newlyweds) to be sulking and feeling cheated if the promised services were not provided. Hence, the complainant was well within his right to make alternate arrangement at his own in another hotel and OPs are bound to refund the amount paid to them as well as compensate the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him.
9.     However, so far as the refund of the amount of ₹9,500/- paid to Modi Taxi Services is concerned, we are afraid the same is not admissible to him. The booking was done by the complainant in advance from 25^th to 28^th December, 2020 for travel from Chandigarh to Manali and back, as is apparent from receipt (Annexure C-8).  The complainant has surely utilized the said taxi service and no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is alleged qua the same. It is also not made out that the complainant had to suddenly arrange the taxi service due to the act and conduct of the OPs. As a result, complainant cannot be granted this part of relief. 
10.         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 refund the amount of ₹10,302/- paid by the complainant towards the booking made by him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 15.12.2020 till realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     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 amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) &  (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/10/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President