Delhi

New Delhi

CC/138/2013

Anju Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. D Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./138/2013                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

SMT. ANJU AGGARWAL

W/o Sh. Sumant Aggarwal,

104/56, Sector-16,

Rohini, New Delhi-110085

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

 

D. PAULS TRAVEL & TOURS LTD.

B-50, Shivalik

New Delhi-110017.

 

       .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

This complaint filed under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that she approached the OP for booking a package tour for Nepal for her family. The OP offered a comprehensive tour package for three nights and four days, stay in Deluxe room with daily breakfast and half days sightseeing by private car. On believing the assurance and services assured to be provided by the OP, the complainant booked the tour package for travel and stay at Nepal. But the services provided by the OP was not in accordance with the assurance given by the OP.

 

The grievance raised by the complainant is that the rooms provided in the hotel were not Deluxe Rooms. General Rooms with unhygienic conditions were provided to the complainant and her family. When this problem was brought to the notice of the hotel staff, they shifted the complainant and family members to other room. But conditions of the rooms were also same. The breakfast provided by Patel was unhygienic and unhealthy. The complainant and family has taken breakfast only on first day in the hotel staff had taken all the coupons for the subsequent deals on first day itself as per their policy. No sightseeing facility was provided by the OP, according to their promises and assurances and due to the said reason complainant had to arrange the private conveyance for sightseeing at Nepal and spent a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- on this account.

 

It is alleged by the complainant that the complainant informed the OP about the whole incident and inconvenience caused to them, but the OP refused to accept any complaint and gave away reply to the complainant. The services provided by the OP have been deficient and faulty and due to the deficient services and behaviour of the OP, the complainant had faced inconvenience and mental agony. The complaint has prayed for the following reliefs:

1. Pass an order compensating the complainant with Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing deep mental agony and distress owing solely to the unfair practice and deficiency of services of the OP.
2. Direct the payment of Rs. 20,000/- cost of litigation expenses incurred by the complainant may kindly be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
3. Any other or further order that may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice.

 

The notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who contested the complaint and filed written statement taking one of the preliminary objections that this District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter which took place in Nepal as cause of action accrued outside the territory of India. On merits the OP has not disputed that the complainant has booked the tour package of Nepal with family members with the OP. According to OP all the tour components booked were mentioned in the documents provided to the complainant's husband and there was no deviation there from. With regards to hotel accommodation. It is also submitted that it was ascertained that room numbers, 102, 111, 112, 310 were allotted to the group. The complainant. Admittedly got the room shared on her own. OP denied that the rooms were unhygienic as hotels are regulated by government authorities for its cleanliness. The OP also denied that the breakfast provided by hotel was unhygienic or unhealthy as many people consume breakfast from same hotel with no complaints so far. The coupons are always taken against breakfast and not just for the sake of taking it. As breakfasts were prepared and were ready for tourists to consume against their coupons. The OP has submitted that the sightseeing tour could not be provided due to the vehicle strike in Kathmandu. The cost of the city tour that complainant alleges is unbelievable as it is quoted up to Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per person. If someone has provided sightseeing tour at very high premium due to strike it cannot be saddled on OP. The OP has alleged that situation of vehicle strike was not in control of OP. The OP has denied that complainant faced a lot of harassment and mental agony due to the conduct of the OP. The OP has denied other facts stated in the complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complainant with heavy costs under section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act.

 

In the rejoinder the complainant has denied the averments made in the written statement of the OP and has reaffirmed the facts stated in the complaint. In support of her case Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence. On behalf of the OP, the affidavit in evidence of Mr Raghuvinder Pal Singh is filed. The OP has also filed written arguments.

 

 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of OP, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

 

On the question of jurisdiction, it is argued on behalf of the OP that this District Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the allegations made in the complaint pertained to the alleged inconveniences suffered by the complainant in Nepal and not in India. We disagree with this contention raised on behalf of the respondent for the simple reason that undisputedly the respondent is carrying on business and has addressed in New Delhi. So, by virtue of clause (a) of Subsection (2) of Section 11 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

 

          It is not disputed that the complainant and other persons in the group accompanying complainant on tour to Nepal were promised three break fast, accommodation in Deluxe rooms and city tour on car.

 

          The complainant has alleged that the Deluxe rooms were not provided to them and when the problem was brought to the notice of the hotel staff, they shifted the complainant and other family members to other rooms. But the condition of other rooms was also same. On behalf of OP, the argument is that what transpired between the complainant and the Hotel service provider for room changing is not to the knowledge of the OP. According to OP, the hotels are regulated by government authorities in Kathmandu, Nepal for its cleanliness.. Therefore, it appears that the complainant and other group members were initially not given appropriate room as per promise of the tour package and on the complaint being made to the hotel staff they were shifted to the appropriate room. How this shifting from one room to another in the hotel is also a deficiency in service as the appropriate room should have been provided at the first instance, and not on complaint to the complainant and the group members.

 

Regarding, not providing the proper food the details of the food provided is not given, nor the food promised in the breakfast is detailed in the complaint. However, there is no denying to the fact that proper hygienic and appropriate food should have been provided to the complainant and the group members in the hotel. However, it is not disputed that the tour package included only breakfast of the complainant and group members of the tour and not to lunch and dinner, et cetera. Therefore, the deficiency on this count is also not of high order/value.

 

Regarding the third and the last grievance raised by the complainant. Admittedly, the sightseeing, was also part of the tour package and the OP was to provide vehicle/taxi for sightseeing of the complainant and the other group members. It is not disputed that the sightseeing facility by providing vehicle was not made available to the complainant and the group members of the tour package. When the charges paid for tour package by complainant and the other group members include this facility of sightseeing by providing  cars to the complainant and other group members which was not provided admittedly, on account of strike of taxi drivers there or any other ground which may or may not be beyond the control of the OP, the deficiency in service and inconvenience to the complainant and other group members is the irresistible conclusion for the simple reason that the complainant has paid for this facility and the proportionate amount has not been refunded to the complainant against this facility by the OP despite notice given by the complainant raising grievances against the OP in that tour in question. However, we feel that the claim of car expenses in the sum of Rs. 60,000- to Rs. 70,000/- individually by complainant looks to be very high and unreasonable. The reason is that conveyance/car/taxi was not promised to be provided by the OP to each person separately. It is a matter of common knowledge that car/taxi can accommodate for tourists easily. Therefore, in a group of about 10 persons. The three cars/taxis are sufficient. But this complainant, like other members of the group who have filed individual complaints have claimed taxi charges of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- individually, which looks to be unreasonably high. More so, when no receipt from any tourist company or owner taxi driver is produced on behalf of the complainant.

 

The above discussion reveals that the OP tourist company is guilty of deficiency in services provided to the complainant by not fulfilling the tour promises made by it. However, we find that the claim of compensation in the sum of rupees. 200,000/- and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- made in complaint to be unreasonably on higher side. Keeping in view the mitigating factors in favour of the OP that the receipt of payment from tourist company/owner taxi driver is not filed by complainant, there was a taxi operators/drivers strike in Kathmandu at the relevant time and a taxi/car can accommodate easily up to 4 tourists and details of payments made by complainant to the OP for the tour package are not given in the complaint. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded to the complainant in this case, in our view, should be on the lower side.

 

In view of the above discussion, we partially allowed the complaint and direct the OP to pay lump sum compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- including the litigation cost to the complainant and the complaint is disposed of accordingly. In case the said amount is not paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of one month from date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recoverable from the OP along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

File be consigned to the record room.

   Pronounced in open Forum on 01/02/2017.

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                 (H M VYAS)

                                                              MEMBER                                   MEMBER