Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

270/2011

T.Selvaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Cox & Kings India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Pugaleanthi

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

                      Date of complaint   : 12.09.2011

                      Date of Order          : 24.08.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

      PRESENT:   THIRU.B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                      : PRESIDENT

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

                TR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                        

C.C.NO. 270/ 2011

MONDAY THIS  24^TH  DAY OF AUGUST  2015

 

Mr. T.Selvaraj,

No.32, Dewan Rama Road,

Purasawalkam,

Chennai-84.                                         ..Complainant

                                                      .. Vs ..

M/s. Cox & Kings India

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.14, Corporation Complex,

Dr.Nair Road, Pondi Bazaar,

T.Nagar,

Chennai-17.

Having its Corporate Office at

Turner Morrisson Building,

16^th Bank Street,

Fort Mumbai 400 001

Rep. by its  Managing Director.                   .. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant                     :   M/s. S.Pugaleanthi & another

  

For Opposite party                        :  M/s. Mothilal, & other  

 

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.5,17,000/- with interest  and also to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.     

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM,  PRESIDENT        

 

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant booked two tickets through the opposite party for himself and his wife  and went as Europen discovery tour.   The opposite party had requested to make a payment of Rs.2,39,320/- for the package.  The complainant paid the amount by way of cheque dated 11.2.2010.   Even at the time of initial discussion the complainant had informed the opposite party that they intend to stay at London for ten days on their return from the tour as their son was in London.  But the opposite party suggested  the complainant to go to London earlier since the group tour returns from Rome directly to India.  At that point of time itself the complainant enquired about the change in fare or other difficulties if any. But the opposite party was affirmative and promised that therel would be no additional charge or any difficulty due to the variation required by the complainant. 

2.     Till 22^nd of March he was rest assured that every things was in order and was making all the arrangements for the trip.  But to the shock and surprise of the complainant till 25^th evening the opposite party was not able to issue the confirmed tickets and were not responding in a responsible way.  Added to the same the opposite party demanded an additional amount of  Rs.17000/- stating that the charges are bound to occur and they are not responsible for the escalation or changes in price of air fare.  

3.     The problems did not end with the ticketing process.  Added to the ticketing woes the prefix of the complainants wife was affixed as Mr.instead of Mrs this was brought to the knowledge of the opposite party immediately.  But the opposite party assured that it would not be a problem and that they will take care of it.  But again to the discontent of the complainant the airways authority created a great problem at the time of issuing the Boarding pass.    

 

4.     The complainant and his wife are pure vegetarians and the complainant had already told the opposite party that throughout the tour program they have to be provided only with vegetarian food and necessary arrangement may be made for the same.   The opposite party assured that all intimations have been passed on and the complainant and his wife will be provided pure vegetarian food throughout the tour programme.  But no food was provided in the flight.   The action of the opposite party is arbitrary unilateral and absolutely illegal.    Accordingly the complainant has  issued several letters and notice to the opposite parties.  The said notice was duly received and acknowledged by the opposite party.  However they have not chosen to sent any reply till date.   As such the act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint.

 

 

Written version of  opposite parties  is  as follows:-

5.      It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party did not give guarantee or assurance for deviation of tickets and informed the complainant that the deviation as required by the complainant would only be subject to ticket availability.  The complainant was also informed since he had requested for deviation from the tour such difference in air fare would have to be borne by the complainant, which is the complainant readily agreed. 

6.     In fact the complainant was informed to deposit a sum of Rs.17,000/- for arranging tickets for the deviation in tour as  requested by the complainant.   It would be pertinent to note that an amount of Rs.2,39,320/- paid by the complainant was only towards tour costs and surely the complainant in the event of wanting to deviate the tour and stay in London for an extra period would necessarily have to bear additional airline charges since this would  not be inclusive of tour costs.    The opposite party is not responsible for any mistake in the prefix that was attached to the complainant’s wife name.  While sending requests to the concerned Airline, the correct prefix of the complainant and his wife were sent.  Therefore the opposite party cannot be held responsible if the wrong prefix was added to the complainant’s wife’s name by the concerned airline.   The opposite party cannot be held responsible for no food being served in the flight and denied that the complainant and  his wife were not provided food after landing by the opposite party.   The opposite party is not aware of any health condition of the complainant’s wife.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

7.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant.    Opposite party have filed their proof affidavit and no document was marked on the side of the opposite party.  

 

8.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

           1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 

            opposite party ?

 

         2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim sought for in the

            complaint against the opposite party and what relief ?

 

9.      POINTS -1 & 2:

        Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavit of both sides, complainant documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and considered the both side arguments.  Considering the both side case there is no dispute that the opposite party is the Tour operator having Head office at Mumbai and branch office at Chennai, with whom the complainant and his wife have booked Tour programme arranged  by them and went as Europen discovery tour. 

10.    The complainant grievance is for the said tour the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.2,38,320/- as per Ex.A1 on 11.2.2010.   At the time of booking the tour programme the complainant has told his proposal to stay at Landon for ten days on their return from the tour as his son was in Landon.  The opposite party also accepted for the said proposal and promised and it was informed by the office of the opposite party that this is only a pre-ponement of the journey and hence no additional cost will be involved.  However contrary to this the opposite party have compelled the complainant and collected a sum of Rs.17,000/- as additional charge as deviation and additional charge for cost of air ticket on 22.3.2010 which amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the same the opposite party is liable to refund the complainant with interest and further alleged that before the date of journey though the tour programme was booked and necessary charges have paid on 11.2.2010.  the ticket for the said journey was booked and handed over to the complainant on 25.3.2010 only for the journey taken place at the early morning of 26.3.2010 which caused mental agony, hardship and anxiety to the complainant.     The complainant stated that the complainant wife name in the flight ticket was prefix as Mr. instead of Mrs. which caused problem and hardship to the complainant in getting boarding pass  for the flight.    Further even during the travel in the  Airline though it was informed already to the opposite party the complainants are vegetarian no vegetarian foods were served and which caused hardship to the complainant as well as his wife.  As such the opposite party had committed deficiency of service in making arrangement of the said tour, not provided proper food during journey in the flight. 

11.    However the opposite party has resisted the said complaint by stating that the additional charges of Rs.17,000/- collected from the complainant is due to deviation of his tour programme by staying in Landon with his son’s family and the additional fare of Air ticker is due to the same.  Further the mistake in  prefix Mr.  instead of Mrs in the name of the complainant’s wife in Air ticket has happened due to Mrs. issued by the Air Ticket issuing Authority and the allegation that the complainant and his wife were not provided vegetarian food in during journey in Airlines they are also not concerned with the opposite party and as such they are not responsible  for the same.

12.    As such the allegation made against the opposite party  as above by the complainant are not sustainable in low.  Further the terms and conditions signed and accepted and agreed by the complainant at the time of booking the tour programme will also prevent the complainant to make complaint mentioned allegation against the opposite party and to claim compensation.  Therefore the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is to be dismissed.

13.    However on going through the document filed by the complainant and proof affidavit of the complainant it is acceptable that as stated by the complainant event at the time of booking for the tour programme the complainant has told to the opposite party office that in the end of tour programme the complainant and his wife are going to stay at Landon for ten days in order to stay with his son’s family and it was informed by the opposite party office that no additional charges will be charged for the same.  Since it amount to preponement  of the journey.     The said air ticket for the journey have not been sent to the complainant till 22.3.2010 but on the date he was asked to pay additional charges of Rs.17,000/- and he was compelled by the situation to pay the same to the opposite party is acceptable. The exchange of SMS between the complainant and the opposite party in this regard and detailed filed as Ex.A8 prove the same.  Contrary to this the opposite party contention that the said additional charge of  Rs.17,000/- was collected as deviation and additional Air ticket charges is not acceptable as no particulars of documents by the opposite party have been  furnished to show that the said additional charges were collected towards the additional air ticket charges.   Further the said air ticket for the journey of the complainant is admittedly air ticket belatedly issued  during three days earlier to the journey i.e. on 22.3.2010, though actually tour programme was booked and necessary payment by the complainant was paid to the opposite party by Ex.A1, dated 11.2.2010 itself.   Further it is also acceptable that as stated by the complainant due to delay in booking the air ticket by the opposite party  in this regard might have caused the additional charge of air ticker.    Further the opposite party though referred the terms and conditions duly signed and agreed by the complainant at the time of booking the tour programme the said document has not been filed on the side of the opposite party in order to prove the contention that on the basis of the said terms and conditions the opposite party is not liable to return the said additional charges collected from the complainant towards deviation and additional air ticket.   Therefore the additional charges collected from the complainant by the opposite party a sum of Rs.17,000/- towards tour programme is amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant is acceptable.   The opposite party is  liable to return the said amount to the complainant as claimed by the complainant.

 

14.    Further  the  other allegations  made by the complainant against  the  opposite  party   that   prefix   of Mr. instead of Mrs in the name  of   the   complainant’s   wife   in   the Air ticket which caused problem  and  hardship  in  getting  boarding  pass  and  not  providing  of vegetarian  food  in  the  Air  line  during  the   journey  to  the complainant and his wife which  caused hardship to the complainant and his  wife,   those are all not directly concerned with the opposite party but the act concerned with the Air ticket  issuing authorities.  Therefore for which the opposite party is not directly responsible is acceptable.

15.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the collection of Rs.17,000/- as additional charges from the complainant as Ex.A2 on 22.3.2010 by the opposite party is amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to return a sum of Rs.17,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 22.3.2010 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of  Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.  

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite party is  directed to return a sum of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand only) as additional air ticket fare with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 22.3.2010   to till the date of payment and also  to  pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within  six weeks  from the date of receipt of copy of this order.        

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  24^th   day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-I                                   MEMBER-II                                                    PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 11.2.2010  - Copy of receipt for the payment made.

Ex.A2- 7.5.2010     - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 11.5.2010   - Copy of RPAD Acknowledgment.

Ex.A4- 21.10.2010            - Copy of letter from  the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A5- 3.11.2010   - Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A6- 4.11.2010   - Copy of RPAD Acknowledgment.

Ex.A7-                        - Copy of email correspondents.

Ex.A8-                        - Copy of list of SMS sent received from the opposite party.

Opposite party’s Side documents :

           .. Nil ..

MEMBER-I                                   MEMBER-II                                                    PRESIDENT.