Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1023/2012

Sushant Taparia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tomas Cook India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 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/1023/12                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Sushant Taparia,

S/o Sh. Satya Narain Taparia,

R/o H.no.C-13, Shakti Appartments,

Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085

Permanent R/o H.No.1212, Station Road,

Mainpuri, U.P.

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

1. M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.,

        C-35, Connaught Place, Inner Circle,

        New Delhi-110001

 

2. M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.,

        Dr. D.N Road, Fort, Mumbai-400071

 

        ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

 

The complaint of deficiency pertains to change of honeymoon tour of Europe scheduled to depart on 2nd July 2012, planned with OP, owing to late delivery of visa on the evening of 2nd July, after the flight had left in the morning. The couple postponed the visit for 6.8.12 and OP charged Rs.97000/- as cancellation charges of earlier tour programme by taking inability of couple to go for want of Visa as NO Show. It is alleged that OP threatened to forfeit 50% of the tour cost, if they refused to be accommodated in next scheduled visit tour of Europe. The complainant seeks compensation for the change of tour programmed due to late arranging of Visa by OPs despite giving all documents in time.

The OP in reply has stated that they only facilitate Visa and this case the documents were given late by the couple, which took time and the Schengen visa for Europe reached the couple only on the evening of 2nd July after departure of tour scheduled for that day. The OP still accommodated the couple in the tour of 6th August 2012, which they enjoyed and there was no complaint on that account. The OP explained the charging of cancellation charges based on terms and conditions.

We have considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions made by both the parties. The crux of the dispute is not enjoyment of tour but the charging of cancellation charges, despite the OP being fully aware of the circumstances leading to delay in delivery of Visa despite all its efforts. In these facts, there is no question of inability to board the scheduled flight to be described as cancellation of tour. The tour in such an event was only rescheduled to another date. The attempt of OP to justify more money charged from the couple is nothing but unjust enrichment and exploitation of the situation of newlywed couple. It is nothing but unfair trade practice to feed the greed of the OP.

We hold OP deficient in services and direct it to return the additional sum of Rs. Charged from the complainants with interest of 9%. We also award compensation of Rs.25,000/-for the litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied 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 04.07.2015.                    

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER