Delhi

New Delhi

CC/213/2013

Ramesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Nitesh Kumar Shukla (SOTC kuoni travel India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/213/13                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Ramesh Sharma, S/o late Sh. M.R Sharma,

Sh. Neera Sharma, W/o Sh. Ramesh Sharma

Both R/o. 233, Tarun Enclave,

Pitampura, New Delhi

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

1. Nitesh Kumar Shukla,

SOTC, Kuoni Travel (India) Ltd.,

219, 2^nd Floor, Ring Road Mall,

Sector-3, Rohini, Opp. Deepali Chownk,

Pitampura, Delhi

 

2. The M.D,

SOTC, Kuoni Travel (India) Ltd.,

F-29, Malhotra Building, C.P, New Delhi

 

3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

570, Rectifire House, Naigum Cross Road,

Wadala (W) Mumbai, Maharastra 400031

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

The Complainant highlights callousness and insensitivity of OP foreign tour operator towards complaint who availed services of a tour package to Europe.

 The facts are that complainant along with his wife purchased a tour package “CS Magic’ of Europe from OP no.1 & 2 for a total sum of Rs.2,65,706/-. The tour was from 26.05.12 to 06.06.12. The tour package was insured with OP no.3 and he was assured that the loss of the baggage would be covered under the policy. It is alleged that on 06.06.12, while in Rome on tour, his purse which contained their passport, mobile phone, camera, cash and other valuables was stolen by someone from the dining hall of the hotel Euro Suite. He immediately informed Mr. Romy, their tour manager, but no help was forthcoming and they were not able to trace the purse and this resulted in missing his flight to India. It is alleged that he requested Mr. Romy to arrange for return tickets and to take care of the other formalities as he was unknown and stranger in the country and had no knowledge of local language besides being aged persons with no money as well.

It is alleged that Mr. Romy told them to fend for themselves since he had to attend to some another batch. Mr. Romy only helped to accompany them to local police station to lodge the report and complainant could not contact the OP no.2 on emergency numbers. It is alleged that the ticket was not cancelled in time and they had to spend Rs.50,000/- for the return fare by borrowing etc.

It is alleged that the tickets of the complainants been cancelled in time, they would have been able to get alternate tickets at marginal difference but since this was not done, they ended up paying Rs.50,000/- for the return fare over and above of what they had paid for the earlier tickets for which no refund was received.

It is further alleged that the complainants family members were made to go through a lot of hardship in order to arrange money for their hotel stay, airfare etc at such a short notice and being in the constant knowledge that their parents were stranded at a foreign location without any help. This a apart from the mental agony an torture that the complainants had to go through for 3 days before they were able to return to India on 09.06.12. The Airport Authority India detained the complainants because their passport was duplicate issued by the Embassy of India, Rome, after enquiry and satisfaction the complainant was permitted to leave the Air Port. The Complainants great tension, agony harassment due to the part of the respondents.

It is alleged that OP no.1 neither helped him in arranging for hotel accommodation nor for arranging money for them to pay for their conveyance, hotel, stay, food, air fare etc, though they made tall claims for customer satisfaction. This complaint is in respect of lot of hardship faced by the couple in arranging money in a strange country where no one was known to them and there no help for their stay etc. in the time of difficulty. He has brought on record the correspondence with the OP party vide Exh.CW1 to CW14.

The OP no.1 & 2 filed reply/evidence in support of their, case while OP no.3 has not filed any reply. However, neither the complainant nor OP has brought on record the insurance policy, if any, on record to show its coverage.

The OP1 & 2 have taken technical objections of territorial jurisdiction and cited various terms and conditions. The terms and conditions provided that all bags and personal belongings were responsibility of the tourists and that company was not to be liable for the loss while on the tour. It has contended that it was carelessness of the complainant for which they cannot be held liable or responsible. Mr. Romy helped them to escort them to the police station and also arranged contact in Indian Embassy in Rome for documents. However, the complainant for reasons best known to them did not choose to check in the hotel though Mr. Romy spent Euro 100 from his pocket for the complainant through being tour manager he had to look after the other participants and other arrangements etc. for return flight and all possible help to them was provided. It is admitted that OP no.3 Company has insured the complainant tour and complainant was informed of this in his reply to his email of 18^th June, 2012, so that he can take up the matter with OP no.3.

We have heard both the parties, gone through the material on record, rejoinder filed by complainant and written submissions. The Court asked OP to settle this issue amicably, but the efforts failed.

The question here it’s not the question of negligence of the complainant in not taking care of the purse which was stolen. The OP in its reply has misdirected itself on the question of the liability for loss of purse and negligence and responsibility of the complainant for taking care of their purse and other luggage.

The real question is whether a tour operator taking a person on tour from India to a place unknown to the tourist can abandon him or leave him stranded to this fate, in case the passenger finds himself in a crisis due to loss of money with him or for loss of passport or other necessaries required for him. In a foreign country the tourist is entirely dependent on the tour operator for his needs in difficulties, if any faced by him as he being unknown to the place and a stranger and unfamiliar with local language of the place is totally helpless to proceed or to ensure his return journey. The manager no doubt accompanied him to the police station for lodging complaint but it is not very relevant as the real problem face by him is not about legal action or report to the police station for any legal proceedings but real problem is for him was to find a place to stay for a short time to pursue his fresh passport and documents with the help of local embassy and to arrange stay and money. It all took 3 days and he flaw back on 09.06.12. It is explained by complainant during arguments that had he checked in the hotel, for a day, he had no money for boarding for 3 days it took.

In our view, OP1 has simply failed to address the real issue of complainants in the situation in which they found themselves by reasons of their old age being not able to arrange money for a hotel and for other needs till their return to India. In our view leaving them at Indian Embassy without money is just to abdicate the responsibilities and shows insensitivity towards the plight of the passengers. OP was paid for a return ticket and OP was bound to facilitate their return back to India. The OP should have provided temporary cash sufficient enough on loan basis to the complainant so that they can stay there to obtain necessary document from Embassy. No doubt OP cannot delay the departure of its other passengers in the tour, who had already booked tickets and they cannot be made to wait till this couple came out of difficulty. But at the same time arranging for their return tickets by OP through local agents or local office and securing stay arrangements to tide over difficult period was a necessary requirement, and part of service to a consumer of tour package.

The complainant has rightly stated and contended that anyone can land in this plight and the India Govt. and the Embassy should make it a condition of license on the tour operators taking tourists from India to Foreign countries that in such situations the tour companies would not leave the tourist without adequate cover and money with them. This can be achieved by suitable insurance and later received from tour operators for reimbursing the tour operator.

We agree with this submission and would direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Ministry of External Affairs and other concerned Ministries of Tourism, to pay attention to this aspect and lay down guidelines for tour operators in this regard.

 In our considered view, OP has failed to render the assistance to the complainant in difficulty; and escorting them to police station and leaving them at embassy is nothing but lip sympathy. We hold OP deficient in rendering a proper service to the complainant. Had OP displayed sympathy, compassion and concern with the complainants condition by loaning the money or by other means, the tour would have been most memorable, than what has become unforgettable to the complainants forever. Memorable tours bring more business. The conduct of OP calls for a punitive compensation to be paid by it to sensitize it to its responsibilities to consumers in travel and to teach other a lesson.

In view of this, we award a punitive compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant for deficiency on the part of OP resulting in hardship and harassment faced by them due to insensitivity of the OPs. We also award a litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/- to be paid by the OP1.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 24.11.2015.

                                           

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER