This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is more than 65 years old and her husband is about 75 years of age who agreed to travel with the OP/Travelling Agency at South India for the period of 14 days and paid total amount of Rs.21,218/- to the OP and the said scheduled journey commenced on 6^th March, 2011 and boarded Chennai Mail at about 11-58 p.m. along with other tourist party and at the time of booking of the said tour, the Manager of the OP Company candidly confessed that special care of the aged person/Senior Citizen shall be taken from their end.

          Accordingly, on the basis of full assurances and considering then vast experience in regard to conducting tour of the OP/Company, the complainant and her husband preceeded with them and reached Chennai on 8^th March, 2011 at about 3-30 p.m., they reached the Tirupati Temple with the assistance of Sankar Das their representative of OP who normally distributed foods to all the tourists but also acted as a Manager of the tour Company/OP who also after taking the custody of the belongings, suggested the visitors the way of ingress to the temple and the spot where all shall have to assemble after completion of Darshan of the Lord Balaji.  During visit at Tirupati Temple at about 6 p.m. the husband of the complainant while waiting in the q          ueue for more than one hour in extremely hot and suffocating atmosphere of a temple, have began to perspire heavily along with breathing trouble and he almost became senseless and with the help of security personnel of the temple he was rescued but in place of reaching Tirupati Bus Stand, ultimately they were carried away to Bhudebi Complex just beside the Central BSF Camp wherein they were given shelter by the BSF Personnel.  It is also stated that due to non-Cooperation and negligence and carelessness of the OP/Tour & Travels who failed to provide adequate assistance and security to the tourists in spite of assurances given by them prior to booking the tour programme and ultimately ignored to provide assistance/Medical help as per necessity during the tour for the elderly people like the complainant and his wife, who ultimately have been ignored from the side of the OP and took shelter the whole night at BSF Camp from where their son and daughter were contracted over telephone and their son arrived from Mumbai on the next day on 11-03-2011 and carried away them on 14-03-2011 to Member for treatment.

          Being aggrieved by such irresponsible conduct on the part of the OP, the complainant served legal notice on 08-06-2011 and filed this complaint for compensation etc.

          In its written version, the OP stated that they have made all arrangements with their best efforts to ensure the comfort of the tourists.  In the instant complaint, the complainant herself has not made any averment to the effect that she was not rendered services, that was promised, but alleged deficiency and not complying instruction of OP by her husband.  It is stated that the complainant and her husband were fully aware the tour programme and condition the complainant and her husband availed of the tour knowing the details of tour programme from the OP.  Fact remains that the tourists reached in Chennai on 05-03-2011 and the journey to Tirupati took place on 10-03-2011.  If the complainant or her husband had felt any discomfort or excessive stress or strain then it was open for them not to undertake the trip to Tirupati which was caused due to the husband of the complainant.  If the complainant had no premonition of the mishap then how the OP has any inkling of the same.  it is specifically stated by the OP that all the passengers/tourists including the complainant and her husband were accompanied by the staff of the OP at Tirupati on 10-03-2011 along with special Identity Cards, wherein the name of the Grand Hotel along with its phone number and other particulars were given.  But the complainants and her husband out of their own volition did not carry such identity/identification cards provided by the OP.  It is also stated that Balaji Temple has large number of gates and, as such, all the members of the said tour party members were given specific instructions to assemble at a particular point.  It is also stated that once the tourist members entered inside the gate of Balaji Temple, staff and In-Charge of the OP had no control, over them.  And such control would once again be taken up only after the members assembled at the point, as instructed to assemble after completion of their visit of the temple.  Once inside the temple, the OP and its staff had absolutely nothing to do in so far as the activity of any particular tourist members inside the temple.  The complainant and her husband were fully aware of the fact that once they were inside the temple, there would be no personnel of the OP to escort them.  The complainant and her husband was, however, in a group with other tour members, and, therefore, it cannot be stated that they were along and further the queue of the pilgrims was an usual daily occurrence at Balaji Temple and all other tour members who entered the Balaji Temple had also to stand in the queue of pilgrims, and it was for the complainant and her husband to join the group of other tour members so that she woulde not be alone.  Moreover, the Security Personnel of Balaji Temple had let out the complainant and her husband through a secret gate which was not open to the public and had the complainant and her husband mentioned about the Hotel where they were staying then they could have been guided and might be reached at the said place.  It is entirely the fault of the complainant and her husband as they neither properly stated the name of the Hotel nor the name of the bus stand where the bus of the OP was parked.  Since, the other tourists of the OP did not wait indefinitely as it would have caused inconvenience and hardship to all other tourists and in such a situation the bus carrying the other tourist members left for the Hotel, but Sankar Das along one or two others stayed back and they ran from pillar to post to find out the complainant and her husband.  They also reported the matter to the temple authority and even had the names of the complainant and her husband announced.  But the complainant and her husband had voluntarily meandered out of the temple complex on their own to some unknown destination.  While they were traced and the staff of the OP accompanied them back with them by arranging transport, the complainant and her husband to the Hotel, her son Saikat Bose arrived at Tirupati and took the complainant and her husband at his own instance, though the OP would have made all arrangements for bringing fact the complainant and her husband to Kolkata.  But it is alleged that since the son of the complainant insisted, that he took back his parents with him, and the complainant also agreed to go with their son, and, as such, the Manager of the OP was forced to allow the complainant and her husband to go with their son Saikat Bose.

          The OP states that the entire matter at Balaji Temple was caused due to the acts of the complainant and her husband over which the OP and its staff had absolutely no control whatsoever, and its staff cannot be blamed in any way and there cannot be any lack of service rendered by the OP.

Decision with Reasons

Admittedly, the complainant and her husband availed the tour programme for Tamil Nadu on 06-03-2011 with the OP/Kundu Special till 20-03-2011 i.e. about 15(fifteen) days on payment of Rs.21,218/-(for both of them) and reached Chennai on 8^th March, 2011.  On 10^th March, they went to visit the Tirupati Temple along with other tourists with the assistance of a person Sankar Das who represented the OP/Tour & Travels.  It is stated by the complainant that during the visit at Tirupati Mandir at about 6 p.m. the husband of the complainant went to the toilet and became senseless inside the toilet and the security persons of the Temple rescued him and they somehow managed to exist from the alternative gate by the assistance of the Securityu Personnel and thus reached to A.P.S.R.T.C. Central Bus Stand instead of Tirupati Bus Stand and ultimately reached to Bhudebi Complex just beside the Central BSF Camp Batalian No.94, wherein the employees of the BSF Camp staff namely Samir Maity rescued them and given shelter on the night and after collecting all details, ultimately the BSF officials shifted the complainant and her husband to their allotted Hotel.

          It is also started by the complainant that due to non-cooperation and negligence of the OP/Tour Operator and for such untoward incident occurred, the son of the complainant came to Tirupati on 12-03-2011 and took them with him.

          The main contention of the complainant is that the OP failed to provide adequate assistance and security to them and even no effective effort was taken by the OP/tour company to find out thyem and also no missing diary was recorded before the Tirupati P.S. from their end and to enquire about them through out the night.

          On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, for the interest of justice, the complainant claimed to pay Rs.1,39,962/- by way of compensation from the OP for such reckless act and negligence of duty and issued legal notice to the OP vide letter dated 08-06-2011.  On the other hand, it is the submission of the OP/Kundu Special that both the complainant and her husband are Senior Citizen aged about 65 years and 75 years respectively have booked the tour programme for the Tour of South India, Tamil Nadu and were fully guided of the tour programme and were aware itinerary, the name and place of destination and also distances.  The complainant voluntarily undertook the trip to Tirupati on their own accord.  The incident as narrated by the complainant at the time of visit to Tirupati Temple took place for the laches of the husband of the complainant.  The complainant has never requested the Temple Authorities or their security staff to announce the name of the tourist company about the position/whereabouts to locate them.  As such, the Tour Manager of the OP was very much anxious and requested the Mandir authorities to announce by the name of the complainant, but there was no response from their side.  OP has further stated that itinerary card was supplied to the complainant like all other tourists for keeping the same as an identity of Tour Company, their address, Phone numbers and the name of Hotel etc., which they did not keep with them out of their own volition and if the same were kept by them they would not have to face any problem.  The OP also asserted that Balaji Temple has a large number of gates and for this reason Sankar Das, the staff of the OP had specifically instructed all the tourists including the complainant to assemble at a particular point after completion of their visit and a particular gate was marked for all the tourists to come out and give together.  Since, it is the usual practice to stand in the queue of pilgrims for Darshan and it was open for the complainant and her husband to join with the group of others tour members, so that she and her husband could not be alone.  While the husband of the complainant began to perspire heavily along with breathing trouble and felt the impulse of evacuation of bowls, and this information was not known/communicated to the staff of the OP who was waiting outside the temple complex for them and had no information about the same.  Since they came out of the temple through secret gate by the security staff of the temple, for such fault of the complainant and her husband the other tourists had suffered who were waiting for them.  It is curious to note that the complainant and her husband had forgotten the name  of the Hotel/Tour Company and for all these things as done by the complainant and her husband and thus thrown the OP in a serious problem and Sankar Das the Tour Manager and his associates spent the sleepless night for searching them.

          Fact remains, whatever it happened at Tirupati Temple that is due to total negligence on the part of the complainant and her husband and the OP is not in any way liable/responsible for any claim and from  the aforesaid facts it is clear that the complainant has tried to shift their own negligence and deliberately suppressed the various facts including the facts of non-discloser of the physical condition of the husband of the complainant prior to undertaking the trip.  So, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation or anything else.

          We have gone through the details of the records and observed that it is true and admitted fact is that the complainant and her husband undertook the journey with the OP/Kundu Special to visit South India along with other tourists on 06-03-2011 according to their scheduled tour programme and reached Chennai on 08-03-2011.  During the visit at Tirupati Temple on 10-03-2011 for the DARSHAN of Lord Balaji while the complainant and her husband were in the queue of entering into the temple corridor, her late husband fell ill due to suffocation for congested  atmosphere and began to perspire heavily along with breathing trouble and felt the impulse of evocation of bowels, while the security personnel of the temple rendered their services and helped them to come out through a private gate of the temple and since they failed to locate the right direction of the Hotel so ultimately took shelter at the BSF camp where the employees took them and informed the daughter of the complainant and their son who arrived at Tirupati on 11-03-2011 from Mumbai on 11-03-2011 and took the complainant and her husband to his residence back on 14-03-2011.  In this case, being a Tour Operator the OP cannot evade their responsibility on the plea that the complainant had forgotten, the place and name of the Hotel and did not carry the I. card which were given to them for identification.  They had their more responsibilities about the whereabout of Guest Tourists, whom they had taken and conducted the tour programme by taking total tour money from them.  In lieu of payment, the OP is bound to render their services, but there was laches to render actual help to tourists at all times during the journey and tour programme.  A Tour Manager and their other staff members should have to keep strict vigil on travellers in then genuine need and discomforts.  Since, the complainant and her husband belong to Senior Citizen category and also a very elderly couple, they ought to have been provided more attention by the tour operator during the visit of temple and to keep their mobile/contact nos. while the staff members of tour company were not permitted to enter into the temple with the tourists.  Obviously, the OP/Kundu Travel might not be escaped from such neglected attitude on duty on the part of the company for which the complainant had to bear the burnt dreadful pain and anxiety along with her husband who availed the tour programme as per best assurances of service to be given by them. 

          In the backdrop of such state of affairs, we are inclined to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Kundu Special as enshrined u/s.2(1)(g) & (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986 for causing hardship, mental anxiety and discomfort of the complainant and her husband and, as such, the OP/Kundu Special is liable to refund of the booking money by way of compensation at least Rs.20,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- and shall pay to the complainant.

          In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only).

          The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the complainant for such negligent act during the tour program me along with her husband as rendered by the OP.

          The OP shall have to comply the above order strictly within 30(thirty) days failing which fmor each day’s delay and disobedience of Forum’s order OP shall have to pay punitive damages @Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and, if any, reluctant attitude of the OP is found for complying the Forum’s order in that case penal proceeding u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 shall be initiated against the OP.