Delhi

New Delhi

CC/194/2012

Vivek Singh And Ors. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Hi Tour And Travels - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2019

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./194/12                                                                       Dated:

                  In the matter of:

1.          Mr. Vivek Singh

R/o House No. 38

Comfart Farms E-8 Extensions

BawariyanKalan Bhopal

 

2.          MsAkanksha Singh

R/o House NO. 38

Comfort Farms E-8 Extensions

BawariayanKalan Bhopal

 

3.        Dr. Shiv Kumar Singh

          R/o 17/1 Tagore Town Allahabad

 

4.         MsUsha Singh

R/o 17/1 Tagore Town Allahabad

 

5.          Ms AditiTomar

R/o Room No. 3# rd Floor

Ruby Mansion Barrack Road

New Marine Lines Mumbai

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …..COMPLAINANTS

 

VERSUS

            HI Tour And Travels

          33-34 Regal Building Parliament

           Parliament Street

          New Delhi

.... OPPOSITE PARTY

            ARUN KUMAR ARYA - MEMBER

 

                                                      ORDER

 

The crux of the complaint is that the complainant  alongwith  family  members  conceived  the vacation tour to Kathmandu, Nepal and booked the said tour with the OP. It is stated  that  out of 5 total  Members,  only two of them  were holding   a valid passports and rest of the persons including complainant no. 1 and complainant no. 2  were neither holding the passport nor the election card. It is stated that the complainant  specifically asked the OP as to whether  any Government of India or State Government issued identity proof such as driving license  or PAN card would be sufficed  to which the OP informed  that the Driving License and PAN card would be sufficient identity proof even though the Members did not have passport or the election card and no hindrance  would be cost  in this regard. The complainant paid the demand amount of Rs. 85,000/- to the OP for the tour package. It is stated that till16 August, 2011  no air tickets  and hotel confirmation  was received bookings from the OP. Due to non-receipt of confirmationbooking from the OP, the complainant were residents of Bhopal and other complainant’s residents of

Bihar  at plan their travel from their  respective  places to Delhi to catch flight of Kathmandu, Nepal on 19/08/2011. The OP informed the complainants that the airline will not allow the complainant to board a flight until and unless  a valid passport or election card is possessed by the passengers.It is alleged that the OP deceived  the complainants and induced  them to buy the said package comprising the necessity of passport and election card as the acceptable identity proof of the complainants alleging deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice  the complainants have sufficed  loss as tour was cancelled  and that the complainants had come to Delhi  from their respective residents . Also alleging harassment, mental agony, the following prayer has been made in the complaint :-

1. Direct the opposite party to refund the principal sum of  Rs. 85,000/-  alongwith 14% p.a.  interest  and;
2. Direct the opposite party to make payments  of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation  in view of the mental agony and harassment  suffered  by the complainants on account of the professional  misconduct  attribute  to the opposite  party and;
3. Pass any other order which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.

 

After notice the OP filed written statements / versionsstating thatthe OP had receipt of Rs. 85,000/- towards the cost of the tour includingaccommodation, air fare transfers, sightseeingetc made all necessary bookings and had given the flight tickets to the complainant. The complainant themselves werenegligentand not carryingvalidphoto identity proofat airport for an internationalflight which is a mandatory requirement. The complainant cannot claimfor their own ignoranceof law of the land that all international flights need acceptableidentityproofvalid passport, voter id issued by Government of India/ Birth Certificate / School ID for children and Birth Certificate for infants. It is also mentionedin the advertisement given by OP thatthe customers requireda valid proof of identificationdespite the fact it is the law that for travelling outside India denying all allegations the prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made .

Both the parties have filed their respective evidenceby way of affidavit. Oral arguments have also addressed.

We have considered the material placed before us and submissions to the parties.

During the course of argument, the complainant has referred to the “bookingReferencewhich mentions the booking date 18/01/2011 and the names of the complainant. The OP admits payment of the amount Rs. 85,000/-in August, 2011. These two mismatched submissions have not been disputed on the part of OP in respect of present complaint. It is important to mention that the said booking reference has been placedon recordby the OP itself. No satisfactory explanations to the said document could be addressed on behalf of the OP. But in our considered view,these submissions do not infer to any deficiency in service.

From the forgoing facts on record and the submissions to the parties , it is clear that someof the complainants did not have a valid ID cardwhich is mandatoryto board an international flight. There is no substantiatingevidence placed on recordby the complainantthat theOPever communicated to them that the other IDproofs like Driving license or PAN card would be suffice for international filght. Without going into other controversies as referredto herein above, it is clear that the OP cannot be heldliable for any lapse of the complainantregarding the validID proof . We, therefore, are of the considered viewthat there is no deficiency in serviceor unfair trade practiceon the part of OP. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 03/12/2019

   The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

        File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                PRESIDENT

 

    (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                             (HM VYAS)

                  MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER