Date of Complaint : 31.12.2015
Date of Order :01.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 13 / 2016
THIS FRIDAY 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
1. T.J. Lakshmipathy,
Flat No.34, G2 Moovendar Nagar 2nd Street,
Numbal Thiruverkadu Post,
Chennai -77.
2. L.Chellamma,
Flat No.34 G2 Moovendar Nagar 2nd street,
Numbal Thiruverkadu Post,
Chennai – 77.
3. Kalyankumar,
No.30/5 3rd Trust Cross Street,
Chennai – 28.
4. S.Ramachandran,
No.1/60, Munivel Nagar, 1st Street,
Karanodai, Chennai – 67.
5. R.Sulochammal,
No.1/60, Munivel Nagar, 1st Street,
Karanodai Chennai 67.
6. B.Ravikannan,
No.2/198 3rd Street Main Road,
Shanmuga Nagar Karanodai,
Chennai -67.
7. R.Shanthi,
No.2/198, 3rd Street Main Road,
Shanmuga Nagar, Karanodai,
Chennai – 67.
8. C. Padmammal,
No.2/199 Iyyappanchatram,
Penyapalayam Kootu Road,
Chennai 67.
9. Ramesh,
No.6/428, Kollamitta,
Sulurpet,
Nellore Dist. 529 128.
10. R.Lavanya,
No.6/428, Kollamitta,
Sulurpet,
Nellore Dist 529 128.
11. S.Jayammal,
Nethaji Stret, Dasratha Nagar,
Vembakkam Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District 601 201.
12. K.Murali,
Nedurambakkam Village,
Panjali Post Ponneri Taluk,
Tiruvallur District 601 201.
13. R.Lakshmi,
No.2/196, 1st Street Main Road,
Shanmuga Nagar Karanodai,
Chennai 67.
14. E.Jayalakshmi,
No.1/25, Vinayagar Koil Street,
Bestapalayam Attur,
Chennai 67.
15. D. Ponnmal,
Devaneri Village,
Sholavaram Chennai 67.
16. D.Murugesan,
Kozhipalayam road,
Sholavaram Village,
Chennai 67.
17. M.Usharani,
Kozhipalayam Road,
Sholavaram Village,
Chennai 67.
18. D.Ramdas Naidu,
NO.2/282 Darwin Street,
Attur Road, Sholavaram Post,
Chennai 67.
19. R.Lalithaammal,
No.2/282 Darwin Street,
Attur Road, Sholavaram Post,
Chennai 67.
20. K.Muniratnam,
NGO Nagar,
Ponneri Taluk,
Chennai – 67.
21. M.Yasodammal,
NGO Nagar,
Ponneri Taluk,
Chennai 67.
22. S. Vittobai,
Veklacheri Village,
Tirutani Taluk,
23, K. Varalakshmi,
Amreespuram,
Arakonam Taluk.
23. K.Varalakshmi,
Amreespuram,
Arakonam Taluk.
24. S.Subashini Ammal,
NO.8, Kannadasan Street,
Ayyappakkam Ambattur,
Chennai 58.
25. M. Muthu Naidu,
VGP Medu near Attur Medu,
Sholavaram Post,
Chennai – 67.
26. J. Muniammal,
Periyar Nagar near
Naranambedu,
Sholavaram Post,
Chennai 67.
27. R.Sargunam,
Attur Main Road, Attur Village,
Sholavaram,
Chennai – 67.
28. S. Poongodi,
Attur Main Road, Attur Village,
Sholavaram,
Chennai 67.
29. G. Padma,
Azhivanjiam Village,
Sholavaram Post,
Ponneri Taluk,
Chennaio 67.
30. R.Sivalingam,
“Green House”,
NO.19, Keela Kavalkaran,
Samayapuram Road,
Manachannalur,
Trichy District 621 005.
31. S.Rajeswari,
“Green House,”
No.19, Keelakavalkaran,
Samayapuram Road,
Manachannalur,
Trichy District 621 005.
32. S. Parthiban,
“Green House”,
No.19, Keela Kavalkaran,
Samayapuram Road,
Manachannalur,
Trichy District 621 005.
33. S.Karthikeyan,
“Green House”,
No.19, Keela Kavalkaran,
Samayapuram Road,
Manachanalur,
Trichy District 621 005.
34. P.Manikandan,
No.30, Bahratiyar Street,
Chrompet,
Chennai 44. .. Complainants. - Vs-
1. Shivam Yatra Service, By its Proprietor Senthil, New No.79, TSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai -4. 2. Muthukumar, Manager, Shivam Yatra Service, New No.79, TSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai -4. 3. S.Vaidyalingam, Guide, Shivam Yatra Service, New No.79, TSV Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai -4. .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. S.Natarajan
For the opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,140/- as additional expenditure incurred by the complainant and also to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 15.2.2016.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.
4. The complainants contended that they went for a religious tour to Allahabad, Gaga, Kasi and other pilgrim centers in order to perform religious ceremonies to their fore-fathers during Mahalaya Amavasai organized by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party assured quality service in believing his words the complainants paid for their tickets and other charges. On 8.10.2015 the complainants departed from Chennai Egmore railway station boarded Ramaswaram Varanasi Express at 11.30 p.m. and reached Allahabad at 1.00 a.m on 10.10.2015. During the travel from Allahabad Railway station to Dharmasala they paid a sum of Rs.200/- per head for switching on the Air conditioner in the bus. In Dharmasala they were given accommodation in a charitable dormitory in the 1st floor consisting of only two small halls for the entire crowd of 50 passengers and common toilet. The complainants paid for their accommodation for food and travel besides other charges but were stayed in a charitable dormitory thus money was swindled by the opposite parties. When they were to leave for Tiruveni Sangamam they were given only iddlis and a vada costing Rs.55/- per head which was unpalatable Tiruveni Sangamam they paid a sum of Rs.200/- per head for boat ride against the actual cost of Rs.50/- per head which were known to them when they conversed with boatmen. They also paid Rs.750/- per couple to perform “mangalya pooja” against the actual cost of Rs.300/- per couple, when they reached Dharmalasala tasteless lunch was given in the open ground floor area in a Choultry. When they left Gaya at 4.30 p.m in the enroute they visited only Ananda Bhavan i.e. Pandit Nehru’s Residence against the much promised visits to other places of interest ant sightseeing. On the way they were given a cold dinner at 6.00 p.m. for food which was loaded in the bus from Allahabad itself. The dinner stop was at a place with unhealthy surroundings smoke filled road on the Highway made many of the elderly complainants forego their dinner. Due to the continuous journey the women was unable to answer their urgent calls. The opposite parties avoided night stay. In order to avoid payment. On 11.10.2015 when they reached Bodhgaya at 1.45 a.m the complainants were left in the road upto 4.30 a.m. and the entire crowed was packed in a hall in charitable choultry. When they left to perform the Pinda pooja they shelled out Rs.750/- per head against Rs.400/- per head. After that they had unsatisfactory lunch and when they went to Varanasi they were checked in at 12.45 a.m. and were not given their booked and paid accommodation in Tamil Nadu Guest house. But were made to stay in dormitories which cost Rs.1,500/- per dormitory. Some of them were made to get room on their own on charge. Later they came to know that for name sake arrangement done by the 2nd opposite party an ex-employee of the Tamil Nadu guest house who had been removed from service on grounds of fraud. In Kasi to conduct the pooja the opposite parties guides demanded exorbitant amount none performed pooja at Kasi. The pooja was done by some of the group in a manner known to them following vedic rites. The 3rd complainant who performed the pooja was woken up in the late hours at night from his dormitory by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties whose henchmen was in highly drunken state who attempted to assault him. Thereafter for the boat ride they were paid Rs.200/- per person against it actual cost of Rs.50/-. The Rudraksha pooja at the temple was performed by only 10 persons at Rs.800/- per couple caused a loss of 675/- per head against its actual fare of Rs.125/- per couple. On 13.10.2015 the complainants were forced to vacate their room at 11.50 a.m. and reached Mugalsarai Junction at 2.30 p.m. The complainants were forced to wait in the station without food for a train leaving at 11.30 p.m. and the complainants reached Chennai on 15.10.2015. The complainants paid nearly Rs.3,900/ per person inclusive of train tickets, food accommodation besides other charges as per 1st opposite party demand.
5. The complainants incurred additional expenditure even though these cost has been originally included in the estimate given by the 1st opposite party for poojas, boat rides, stay, food, etc. namely.
Complainants. Amount in Rs.
1.T.J. Lakshmipathy 2,500/-
2. L.Chellammal 1,500/-
3. Kalyankumar 6,500/-
4. S.Ramachandran 3,250/-
5. R.Sulochammal 2,200/-
6. B.Ravikannan 3,250/-
7. R.Shanthi 1,500/-
8. C.Padmammal 3,450/-
9. Ramesh 4,250/-
10.R.Lavanya 1,500/-
11.S.Jayammal 3,000/-
12.K.Murali 3,450/-
13.R.Lakhmi 1,500/-
14.E.Jayalkshmi 3,000/-
15.D.Ponnmal 3,450/-
16.D.Murugesan 3,250/-
17.M.Usharani 1,500/-
18.D.Ramdas Naidu 2,530/-
19.R.Lalithammal 1,500/-
20.K.Muniratnam 3,250/-
21.M.Yasodammal 4,050/-
22.S.Vittobai 4,250/-
23.K.Varalakshmi 3,750/-
24.S.Subashini Ammal 4,250/-
25.M.Muthu Naidu 3,520/-
26. J.Muniammal 3,450/-
27. R.Sargunam 1,750/-
28. S.Poongodi 1,750/-
29. G.Padma 3,450/-
30. R.Sivalingam 2,200/-
31. S.Rajeswari 2,200/-
32. S.Parthiban 2,200/-
33. S.Karthikeyan 2,200/-
34. P.Manikandan 4,520/-
6. The opposite parties were only interested in huge profit but failed to book and provide rooms accommodation. Thus the complainants were put to untold agony due to the attitude of the opposite parties which caused great discomfort which amounts to gross deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. Hence the complainants filed the above complaints seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,140/- additional expenditure incurred by the complainants and Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and cost of the complaint.
7. It would be seen from the compliant that the complainants went on a pilgrimage tour to Allahabad, Gaga, Kasi and other pilgrim centers organized by the 1st opposite party from 8.10.2014 to 14.10.2015.
8. On perusal of the records it reveals that there is no terms of contract between the complainants and the 1st opposite party. Ex.A1 reveals that only the dates and places of visits during the tour.
9. The complainants attributed several allegations against the opposite party such as during the travel from Allahabad Railway station to Dharmasala they paid a sum of Rs.200/- per head for switching on the Air conditioner in the bus, but Dharmasala they were given accommodation in a chartable dormitory in the 1st floor of only two small halls for the entire crowd of 50 passengers and common toilet, the complainants paid for their accommodation for food and travel besides other charges but were stayed in a chartable dormitory thus money was swindled by the opposite parties, when they were to leave for Tiruveni Sangamam they were given only iddlies and vada costing Rs.55/- per head which was unpalatable at Tiruveni Sangamam they paid a sum of Rs.200/- per head for boat ride against the actual cost of Rs.50/- per head which were known to them when they conversed with boatmen. They also paid Rs.750/- per couple to perform “mangalya pooja” against actual cost of Rs.300/- per couple when they reached Dharmalasala tasteless lunch was given in the open ground floor area in a Choultry. When they left gaya at 4.30 p.m in the enroute they visited only Anandabavan i.e. Pandit Nehru Residence against the much visits to other places of interest ant cite seeing, On the way they were given a cold dinner at 6.00 p.m. for food which was loaded in the bus from Allahabad itself, the dinner stop was at a place with unhealthy surroundings smoke filled road on the Highway made many of the elderly complaints forego the dinner. Due to the continuous journey the women was unable to answer their urgent calls, the opposite parties avoided night stay, in order to avoid payment, On 11.10.2015 when they reached Bodh Gaya at 1.45 a.m the complainants were left in the road upto 4.30 a.m. and the entire crowed was packed in a hall in charitable Choultry. When they left to perform the Pinda pooja they shelled out Rs.750/- per head against Rs.400 per head. After that they had unsatisfactory lunch and when they went to Varanasi they were checked in at 12.45 a.m. and were not given their booked and paid accommodation in Tamil Nadu guest house, but were made to stay to dormitories which cost Rs.1,500/- per dormitory, some of them were made to get room on their own charge. Later they came to know that for name sake arrangement done by the 2nd opposite party an x-employee of the Tamil Nadu guest house who had been removed from service on grounds of fraud, in kasi to conduct the pooja the opposite parties guides demanded exorbitant amount none performed pooja at Kasi, The pooja was done by some of the group in a manner known to them following vedic rites. The 3rd complainant who performed the pooja was woken up in the late hours at night from his dormitories by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties whose henchmen was in highly drunken state who attempted in assault. Thereafter for the boat ride they were paid Rs.200/ per person against it actual cost of Rs.50/-. The Rudraksha pooja at the temple was performed by only 10 person at Rs.800/- per couple caused a loss of 675/- per head against its actual fare of Rs.125/- per couple. On 13.10.2015 the complainants were forced to vacate their room at 11.15 a.m. and reached Mugalsarai Junction at 2.30 p.m. The complainants were forced to wait in the station without food for a train leaving at 11.30 p.m., the complainants paid nearly Rs.3,900/ per person inclusive of train tickets, food accommodation besides other charges as per 1st opposite party demand and also they incurred additional expenditure of Rs.1,00,140/- even though these cost has been originally included in the estimate given the 1st opposite party for poojas, boat ride stay, food, etc.
10. It is pertinent to note that the complainants themselves admitted that they have paid only Rs.3,900/- for the pilgrimage tour which reveals that the tour arranged by the opposite parties seems to be a cheaper pilgrimage tour rather than commercial or profit oriented. The receipt issued by the 1st opposite party for the payment made by the complainants Ex.A3 seems to be only towards train ticket as such the balance amount ought to be for boarding and lodging. Apart from that the said amount also includes bus fare in the tour. By collecting such meager amount i.e. Rs.3,900/-. It is found that the 1st opposite party had offered reasonable food and shelter. Whereas for the allegations that the complainants paid extra amount for boating and pooja is not sustainable since it is found that the said amount had been paid then and there. There is no documentary evidence for collection of such amount by the 1st opposite party. In respect of the allegations that the 1st opposite party had not provided proper and tasty food during the tour though admissible as stated above the opposite party had rendered service according to payment. In respect of allegation that they were not given accommodation in Tamil Nadu Guest house there is no any terms and conditions that they would be stayed in the said guest house. As such the said allegations cannot be attributed against the opposite parties. Further the allegation against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties that they attempted to assault one of the complainants along with henchmen is not established through any document i.e. any complaint lodged against him. With regard to the allegation that several complainants could not perform the Ruthrasha pooja in the temple at Kasi since they demanded a huge amount is also not sustainable since it is performed only in the interest of the complainants.
11. The complainants also stated that they had incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,140/- as additional expense even though the cost has been originally included in the estimate given by the opposite parties. Whereas the complainants had not furnished any document showing the bill of estimation. The above amount shown in the complaint seems to be the expenses incurred by the complainants then and there for boating, pooja etc which ought to be spent only by them and cannot be claimed from the opposite parties. Moreover the amount mentioned in the list differs from one complaint to another which clearly shows that they were not paid to the opposite party. It is common in tour where it would be necessary for the complainants to incur additional expense then and there which is unavoidable. The complainants could not assert that the amounts were compulsorily collected by the 1st opposite party. As such the contention of the complainants that they are entitled to claim the said amount from the opposite parties is not acceptable.
12. Further in respect of allegations that they were stayed in charitable trust and dormitory it is found that even for dormitory the opposite party had paid certain amount which was admitted by the complainants and it also reveals that the opposite party afforded amenities only to the extent of payment received from the complainants.
13. The complainants had not issued legal notice to the opposite parties stating their grievances.
14. Though the opposite party failed to give any contra evidence in order to defend their case and remained exparte the complainants failed to establish their case independently.
15. Therefore in our considered opinion we feel that the 1st opposite party had given food and shelter to the extent of meager payment received from the complainants. As such we are of the view that the 1st opposite party had not committed deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants. In such circumstances there is no question of refund of expenses incurred by the complainants since such expenses were spent by the complainants then and there during the tour. Therefore the complainants are not entitled for refund of the sum of Rs.1,00,140/- additional expenditure incurred by them and they are also not entitled for the other relief sought for in the complaint. Moreover the complainants also failed to prove the allegations attributed against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who are the employees of the 1st opposite party and as such complaint against them is not maintainable.
16. As discussed above, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainants miserably failed to prove the deficiency of service attributed against the opposite parties in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 1st day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- - - Copy of Tour details.
Ex.A2- 8.10.2015 - Copy of train tickets.
Ex.A3- - - - Copy of receipts.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
