Delhi

North East

CC/91/2011

Mrs. R. Shymala - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Rao Travels - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2014

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 91/11

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Goel

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

 

In the matter of:-

Mrs. R. Shymala

C/o Mr. V. Natarajan Adv

F-181/7, Dilshad Colony

Kaveri Apartment

Delhi-110095

Complainant

 

Vs

M/s Rao Travels

409 Munirka

Opp: Vasant Vihar Bus Depot

New Delhi-110017                                               

Opposite Party

 

ORDER

 

                                                                                     DATE OF INSTITUTION:   31-03-2011

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      :   20-12-2014

 

N.K. Goel, President :-

            According to the complainant she had booked tickets for visiting Gangothri, Yamunothri, Kedarnath & Badrinath known as Chardam from 14^th May (Night) to 25 (early morning) and payments were made under Cheque No. 856057 dated 29-3-10 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 26,030/- (for Mrs. Shyamala and Mr. K. Ramakrishnan) and Cheque drawn on HDFC Bank for Rs. 51060 bearing No. 304240 dated 12-4-10 (for Mr. Ayilyam P. Balachandran, Mrs. Raji Sundaresan and two others); that on behalf of the complainants, the payment was made by Ms. Geetha Gurumurthy, one of the passengers who travelled along with the complainants for the Chardam trip; that all the complainants along with 6 passengers travelled as a group; that the other complainants Mr. Achinthiya paid for himself and for his friend Mr. Rajkumar Rs. 25,000/- in cash on 10-4-10 at Hyderabad; that the charge per person was Rs. 12,500/- for non a/c room accommodation on twin sharing and for pure vegetarian food; that there was no communication from Rao Travels office for more than a month with respect to the vehicle to which they were assigned or the seat number; that the first four complainants were told by Ms. Geetha Krishanmuthy, one of the passengers as late as May 12, by which time the complainants had booked their flights to Delhi that they had to travel in a      12-seater tempo traveller and not a mini-bus; that if this information had been given to the complainants either at the time of the booking or soon after that, the complainants would have even cancelled the tour since this smaller vehicle was not comfortable as a mini-bus.

              Pleading as to how the OP did not adhere to the terms and conditions and did not provide proper buses (transportation), any guide, hotels and the facilities especially to the women passengers during the tour and as to how the grievances made by the complainants to the OP were ignored and  the quality food was never served and the complainants were made to climb the difficult places of pilgrimage, the complainants have alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and have prayed for issuing direction to the OP to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- each for mental agony, torture and harassment made to the complainants and to meet the unwanted expenditure and the physical stress and strain in a hilly area unknown to the visitors and the language of the places being not familiar to most of the complainants.

            In its reply the OP has pleaded that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in view of the specific mandate of section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). The OP has claimed itself to be the recipient of the Best Tour Operator (Domestic) Award from the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India in the year 2010 and has stated that it has the offices in the other cities and also conducts various tours for the general public. It is pleaded that the pilgrimage trips in the Uttrakhand i.e. Gangothri, Yamunothri, Kedarnath & Badrinath involve various difficulties as detailed in the reply. While admitting that the complainants had booked the tour programme commencing from Delhi on 14-5-2010 and to continue till 25-05-10 the OP has denied the averments made in the complaints and has pleaded as to how the difficulties, if any, faced by the complainants were tried to be solved and in fact met out by the OP. The OP has denied deficiency in service on its part and has prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

            The complainants have filed replies to the replies.

            Complainants have filed their affidavits in evidence. On the other hand, the affidavits of Srinivasa Rao, Partner of OP and Shri Mallikarjuna have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

            Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have also heard the counsel for the OP. None has appeared on behalf of the complainants to advance oral arguments despite opportunities given in this behalf. We have also gone through the files very carefully.

            The OP has admittedly its Head office in Delhi at Vasant Vihar at New Delhi. The tour in question was booked from Delhi by almost all the passengers. The tour had started from Delhi. Therefore, in view of the judgement in Mahesh Ramnath vs. Secy-cum-commissioner (Transport), Delhi, F.A. No. 216/12 decided on 25-5-12 by the Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi this forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

            From the affidavits of the parties and the documents filed on their behalf it transpires that the tour in question had been completed by the complainants. No doubt, it transpires from the record that the complainants had in fact faced some kind of difficulties during the tour but the same were either because the vehicle provided to some of them had gone out of order or because of the non-coordination between the passengers themselves on some occasion/s or because of the areas to be covered by the complainants were hilly areas. While making programme for a trip like the tour in question the passengers must always make up their mind and prepare themselves for such type of difficulties which they can face during the course of trip to a hilly area which may neither be foreseen by the tour operator nor by anyone else.

            Therefore, in our considered opinion, the OP did not commit any deficiency in service. Complaints are accordingly dismissed with no order as costs.    

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter files be consigned to record room.

 

(Announced on 20-12-2014) 

 

(N.K.Goel)                                                                            (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)

President                                                                                       Member