BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 29^th DAY OF JANUARY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainants have filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to compensate them for the mental agony, trauma undergone by them during their tour of Europe and to reimburse them a sum of Rs.44,555/- with interest spent towards air tickets from Delhi to Bangalore with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainants lured by the colourful brochures and claims of the OP opted to join “Classic Europe Tour” of 17 days conducted by OP commencing from 09.05.2009 at an all inclusive cost of Rs.1,85,000/- per person including complete Air Travel from Bangalore to Delhi, taxes, accommodation, visa, guide charges, food etc., and also complete medical care throughout the tour.  OP also assured the complainants that, it will be a cash free travel and the complainants will not be required to spend any money from their pocket during the entire tour except for shopping.  At the commencement of the tour, the OP split all the passengers who opted to join that particular Classic Europe tour into two groups.  The first group comprised of tourists belonging to the community of OP and the complainants were herded into the second group.  The complainant did not suspect anything at that time about the evil intentions of the OP to group the tourists on the basis of community but later realized that it was done with oblique motive.

That, the tour went on well for first few days and thereafter the complainants realized that, they being in the second group were at a total disadvantage.  The first group was treated well by the tour agents throughout the tour and they were served first and thereafter the complainants being in the second group were discriminated against, time and again in all aspect.  When one of the complainants injured herself OP did not bothered to provide medical attention, though the same was assured when the complainants opted to join the tour.  The desperate request made by the complainants to OP and to its tour agents and also to the management of hotel in Switzerland, where she was injured did not yield any result and she silently suffered injury and had to undergo lot of trauma as a result of which, she was totally upset and did not enjoy the tour.  The first complainant was not provided with any medication or at least the glass of hot water when he was suffering from throat infection while in Switzerland as a result of which, the complainant could not enjoy his stay for 4 days at Switzerland.

The complainants for their return journey from Paris to Bangalore boarded the Flight at Paris which was said to be a direct flight to Bangalore, except for changing of aircraft at London.  It came as a shock when they were told that, they did not have the connecting flight to Bangalore from London but were surprised to learn that, the members in the first group have comfortably left London to Bangalore.  The OP had not made any arrangements at London for the complainant’s onward journey to Bangalore and desperate requests of the complainants with the British Airways Personnel did not yield any result in providing them a connecting flight to Bangalore.  Therefore, the complainants were forced to spend about 24 hours at London Airport waiting for a call for the connecting flight on the next day.  The complainant who did not had enough cash on their person, to sustain themselves in London, desperately pleaded with the British Airways Personnel, who after much persuasion agreed to provide connecting flight from London to Delhi instead of London to Bangalore and the complainant’s were told that, they have to make their own arrangements for their journey to Bangalore from Delhi.  The complainants having left with no other option decided to accept the said offer and traveled upto Delhi.  Since they did not had enough money on their person to buy Air tickets from Delhi to Bangalore had to make alternate arrangements through their friends for their connecting flight from Delhi to Bangalore through Spice Jet Airlines paying a sum of Rs.44,555/-.  The complainants were not permitted to use the toilet available in the coach during their travel on road in the tour.

The OP had goofed up in preparing the ticket, in as much as the actual picture of grandchild of the first complainant was not being reflected on the screen at the Immigration counters of the airports in Paris and at London.  The Immigration authorities refused to allow the child to pass through the Immigration counter as the photo of the child was not reflected on the screen instead a photo of adult was appearing on the screen.  The OP had substituted the ticket purchased by someone else as the ticket for the child and has given a bogus ticket to the first complainant.  After much persuasion, the immigration authorities reluctantly permitted the child to go along with the mother with the condition that child should be kept on the lap of the mother, though the said child had been charged Rs.10,500/- towards tour expenses.  Tour managers of the OP did not assist the complainants during their conversation with the officials of British Airways and Immigration authorities.  Despite tour itinerary the complainants were not provided sufficient time on 17^th day of tour for shopping and the tour agents did not assist them in their shopping.  The assurances of the OPs hassle free, cash free, comfortable and luxurious stay with prompt medical care and attention throughout the tour turned out to be a false assurance.  The OP made the tour of the complainants a painful one rather than comfortable one.  Because of the failure of the OP in providing necessary services assured by it the complainants were to undergo mental agony, trauma and discrimination and also in all paying Rs.44,555/- for the journey from Delhi to Bangalore.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainants pray for an order directing the OP to apologize to the complainants for discriminating them, to compensate them in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and to reimburse the complainant a sum of Rs.44,555/- together with interest and litigation cost.

3. OP appeared in person and submitted their version contending in brief as under:

The complainants have travelled to Europe Tour with pre-decided itinerary in a group of 58 members.  There is no complaint what so ever from other members who also accompanied in the same European Tour.  All the 58 members of this group started their tour on the same day and ended the tour on same day.  All the members including the complainants in the said group had breakfast, lunch and dinner in the same hotel on all 16 nights throughout their tour.  All the members of the said group stayed together in a same hotel with the same facility.  All the 58 members of this group in Europe had lunch prepared by the Indian Chefs appointed by the OP supported by exclusive caravan.  All the members of the group had the freedom to go to the hotel dining hall at their convenient time and have dinner after returning from day’s tour.  Throughout the tour, the lunch and dinner were sumptuous Indian delicacies prepared by professional chefs in hygienic conditions strictly maintaining Indian tradition and culture.  The OP had provided two coaches for the said group and two managers and the same was done to make the tour more comfortable.  Each coach and tour manager was supporting 28 adult members.  That, the allegations of the complainants that, two groups were made and their group was discriminated against are false.  All the 58 adult members of the group were treated as one unit and provided with same kind of food, facilities etc.

None of the complainants or the members of the group had reported any injury while on tour and no such claim was also made.  The allegations of the complainant that, the grand children of the complainant was not provided proper ticket and the OPs goofed up while preparing the tickets, are all false.  The grand child of the complainant travelled on the same ticket on onward journey from Bangalore to London on 09^th May 2009 or from London to Bangalore on 26^th May 2009.  The day 17 of the itinerary all the group members including complainants were provided with sufficient time for last minute shopping etc.  The tour managers have no role what so ever for shopping of the group members.  For the reasons best known to them, the complainants failed to board the scheduled London-Bangalore flight.  The co-passengers shared with the OP that the security personnel at London Heathrow Airport did not allow baby food (milk) as cabin baggage which was carried by the complainants along with cabin luggage and this resulted in an unwarranted arguments with security personnel by the complainant and the others.  The British Airways which is the most customer friendly Airline made arrangements for the travel of all these 12 group who could not board at London to Bangalore flight by British Airways Flight from London to Delhi and they had also made arrangements for the travel for all these members by King Fisher Flight from Delhi to Bangalore.  Except the complainant, the remaining group members who could not board flight from London to Bangalore made use of the facility extended by British Airways and reached Bangalore by King Fisher Flight without paying any additional amount to any Airline.  The complainants did not make use of the facility provided by the British Airways to fly by King Fisher Airlines flight from Delhi to Bangalore and made their own arrangements with Spice Jet and sought refund of the money they paid to Spice Jet Airline.  There is no merits in such claim of the complainants.  The complainants have incurred the expenses due to their own negligence and not due to the negligence by any of the operational personnel of OP.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Looking from any angle the complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed and compensation as well.  Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the rival contention of both parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

5. The complainants to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed the affidavit evidence of complainant No.1.  The complainant No.1 reiterated the allegations made in the complaint in the affidavit evidence filed in lieu of oral evidence.  OP filed the affidavit evidence of their Director Mr.Atmanand Krishna Shanbhag in support of the averments made in the version.

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint and the documents relied upon by them.  Also perused the averments made in the version, sworn testimony of the OP and the documents relied upon by them.  Heard the arguments.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8.  (Point No.1) - It is not in dispute that, the complainants joined Europe Tour conducted by the OP by paying necessary charges.  The said tour was a cash free tour and the charges paid by the complainants included flight charges, lodging, boarding and other incidental charges.  The said tour commenced from Bangalore on 09^th May 2009 and it was concluded on 26^th May 2009.  The complainants and other members of the tour flew to London from Bangalore directly and they were supposed to flew back to Bangalore directly from London.

9. The complainants alleges that, the OPs split all the 58 passengers into two groups, referred to as first group and second group and the first group comprised of tourist belonging to the community of OP and they were herded into the second group.  The complainant’s further alleges that, the tourists in the first group were treated well all along the tour by the tour operators and they were served food, breakfast etc., first and thereafter the members of the second group.  The complainants further alleges that, the tourist in the second group including the complainants were discriminated by the tour managers and they were not at all treated well and at every place the members of the first group were taken first for breakfast, lunch etc., and the tourist in the second group were taken thereafter as a result many times they were not able to get sufficient food and also sufficient time to finish their breakfast, lunch etc.  The OP in their version as well as in the sworn testimony denied that, the said passengers consisting of 58 adult members were split into two groups as alleged by the complainant’s.  OP further denies that, the complainants were put in the second group and were discriminated and were not treated well.  It is contended by the OP that, all the 58 adult members in the said group were housed in the same hotel and provided with the same kind of breakfast, lunch, dinner etc., and all the members were the said group were at liberty to go for breakfast, lunch etc., at their convenient time.  Except the self serving statement of the complainant there is no other credible material on record to believe that, the tour members were split into two groups and the first group was consisting of members belonging to community of OP and the second group in which the complainants were allegedly herded were discriminated against.  Therefore, we are not able to accept this allegation as true. 

10. The complainant alleges that, one of the complainants suffered injury when the door of the hotel room fell on her and the OP failed to provide her any medical treatment for the injury suffered by her, as a result the said injured did not enjoy the tour.  The complainants did not mention the name of the complainant who suffered injury, the nature of injury or the day or date on which the said complainant suffered the injury.  Similarly, the complainant No.1 alleges that, he suffered with throat infection in Switzerland and he was not provided with any medical assistance or at least a glass of hot water.  For this also, we do not have sufficient material to believe that, he was denied with any medication or hot water.

11. The complainants alleges that, when they landed in London for their onward journey to Bangalore they were not provided with connecting flight to Bangalore from London as promised by the OP.  The complainants further alleges that, since they could not get the connecting Flight to Bangalore immediately after landing at London they were made to spend several hours at London Airport.  The OP in response to this allegations of the complainant contends that, as shared by co-passenger the security personnel at London Airport did not allow the baby food (milk) as cabin baggage which was being carried by the complainants along with their cabin luggage for consumption of the infant grand daughter of complainant No.1 who was travelling with them in the said group and the same resulted in unwarranted arguments with security personnel by the complainants.  Therefore, it is contended by the OP that, the complainant and other 5 members of the group missed the Flight from London to Bangalore. 

12. The OP knew that, the complainants are travelling with their infant grand daughter who certainly needs milk (baby food) during the Flight.  It appears that, the OP did not take proper care or failed to inform the concerned regarding the necessity of carrying baby food (milk) during the flight.  Had they made necessary arrangements for carrying baby food on board, the same could have averted unwarranted arguments between the complainants and the security personnel at Heathrow Air Port.  It can also be gathered from the material placed on record that, the OP also did not take necessary steps to see that the picture of grandchild of baby is displayed on the screen during check-in which in turn resulted in unnecessary delay and harassment to the complainants.  It appears to us that the tour managers also did not assist the complainants at immigration counter at London Airport for their hassle free return journey to Bangalore.  Therefore, we feel that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in this regard.

13. The complainants alleges that, since the OP failed to make necessary arrangements for their return journey from Bangalore to London by a direct Flight they were made to spend nearly 24 hours at Heathrow Airport thereby putting them to great inconvenience, hardship and mental agony.  The OPs did not provide satisfactory answers for their failure in providing necessary assistance to the complainants in getting immediate connecting direct Flight to Bangalore from London.  Neither in their version or in their affidavit the OP mentioned efforts, if any, made by them for arranging a connecting Flight to the complainants from London to Bangalore immediately after they missed the schedule Flight.  The tour managers of OP have also not assisted the complainants in any manner in getting next Flight to Bangalore from London.  The OP has left the complainants on their own to make arrangements for their return Flight to Bangalore from London.

14. It could be gathered from the materials placed on record that the complainants have persuaded the personnel of British Airways to arrange for their Flight to Bangalore from London.  At the request of the complainants the personnel of British Airways have arranged seats for the complainants in a next available Flight to Delhi from London as the Bangalore Flight was not available immediately.  The complainants have flown to New Delhi from London and they were compelled to make their own arrangements to fly to Bangalore from New Delhi as the OP did not arrange for their Air tickets from New Delhi to Bangalore.  The complainants have spent a sum of Rs.44,555/- for their Air tickets to fly to Bangalore From New Delhi.  We don’t find any basis in the contention of the OP that the authorities of British Airways had arranged tickets for all the complainants from New Delhi to Bangalore through Kingfisher Airlines.  Absolutely there is no material on record to believe the same.  Thus, it is evident that it is the complainants who were made to spent Rs.44,555/- towards Air tickets to fly to Bangalore from New Delhi.  The failure on the part of OP in making necessary arrangements for the travel of the complainant from New Delhi to Bangalore amounts to grave deficiency of service.  OP despite having collected necessary amount from the complainants for their return journey to Bangalore have failed to arrange for their return journey from London to Bangalore directly and even from New Delhi to Bangalore.  Therefore, the OP has to be directed to reimburse the said sum of Rs.44,555/- to the complainants, the amount spent by them towards the Air ticket.

15. The failure on the part of OP in arranging direct Flight to Bangalore from London to all the complainants and their failure in making necessary arrangements for their return journey to Bangalore, after they missed their connecting Flight to Bangalore from London must have put the complainants to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony for which the OP has to compensate the complainants adequately.  In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that OP has to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,555/- to the complainants towards the amount spent by the complainants for the Air tickets from New Delhi to Bangalore and further to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to each of the complainants for deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

16. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

17. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.   OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,555/- to the complainants towards amount spent for Air ticket from New Delhi to Bangalore and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each to all the complainants for deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

          Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 29^th day of January 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 15.01.2010.

1. Sri.C. Jayakrishnappa.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 29.01.2010.

1. Sri.Atmanand Krishna Shanbhag.  

 Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*