DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this 27^th day of September, 2024

                                                                              Filed On: 20/08/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.

Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member               

CC No. 555/2015

COMPLAINANT

Susamaa Samuel, W/o.Samuel Abraham, Palot Veedu, Cheruvannoor Junction, Faroq P.O., Kozhikode-673 631

V/s

Opposite party

Nalina Pothuval, Managing Director, GnS Leisure Travels (P) Ltd., 39/3993, Vantage Point, VRM Road, Ravipuram, Cochin-673 631

F I N A L   O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

          This consumer complaint filed by Susamaa Samuel, W/o.Samuel Abraham, Palot Veedu, Cheruvannoor Junction, Faroq P.O., Kozhikode against Nalina Pothuval, Managing Director, GnS Leisure Travels (P) Ltd., 39/3993, Vantage Point, VRM Road, Ravipuram, Cochin alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.

          The complainant states that the complainants are senior citizens and went for a UK-Europe tour from 01/05/2015 to 10/05/2015 arranged by the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.  Further the complainant paid an amount of Rs.91,000/- as demanded by the opposite party. Opposite party issued a brochure narrating all the facilities provided to their tourists, places they visit, accommodation provided, food as per the choice etc. and had arranged tickets throughout the journey from Cochin to Colombo, Colombo to London, Rome to Colombo and Colombo to Kochi in Srilankan Airlines. The complainant had reached Cochin International Airport at 6.30 am. But they did not get any assistance from the opposite party. After they reached Heathrow Airport, UK one Mr. Babu Joseph introduced himself as a guide of opposite party came to the complainants. Eventhough it is the duty of the opposite party to take care of the complainants, the complainants were forced to run here and there for visa stamping by taking a lot of difficulty and the attitude of the guide was too irresponsible and misbehaving.

          On the second day though it was promised by the opposite party that the tour package include visit to Shakespeare Theatre, London Theatre, Show Dunggar, Lion Show, Shard, the new magnificent tower, flight/ride in London eye and Mini show prior to it… etc but the opposite party did not take the complainant to the said places. Since no arrangement was made in advance to visit Wax Museum, complainants were stand in queue for 1 ½ hours and due to stress and strain they had suffered mental agony. Due to the lack of co-ordination and ignorance of the tour guide, many of the companions could not travel to St. Pancras.

          The quality of food provided by the opposite party was very low and it was damaged due to poor quality packing material. Thus the complainant had to travel such a long journey without food. As per the itinerary provided by the opposite party on 3^rd the complainant supposed to go to Louvere Museum and for shopping but nothing happened on that day. On 4^th day, to travel from Paris to Rome a third class bus was provided by the opposite party. The opposite party gone back from their promises made to minimize their expenditure and to maximize their profit. On 5^th day the opposite party had not taken the complainant many places as offered in the itinerary. The same scenario is repeated in the next day also. All these days, complainant felt the misbehaviour and irresponsibility of the tour guide provided by the opposite party. On 7^th day journey, the opposite party provided a third class bus and the complainants suffered a lot of physical strain during bus travel.

          As per the itinerary, the 8^th and 9^th day are kept for visit to holy places in Vatican City and to visit Roman City. The basic purpose of joining the UK Europe tour is to visit London and Roman City and for that only the complainants had paid lakhs of rupees to the opposite party. But on the 8^th day other than the 4 hours continuous bus journey and of 5 hours wandering, the complainants had not visited any places.  The opposite party had not made any attempt to ensure confortable stay for the complainants during the entire tour and only for financial gain such arrangements are made with minimum facility to survive. Though the flight is scheduled at 3.55 p.m. without taking the complainants to any other places the tour guide took the complainants to the airport at 9 a.m. itself. Since we were dumped into the airport almost 7 hours before the scheduled time on departure and there was no place to sit or no arrangements for food and not even drinking water.

          There was no such horrible tour experienced in complainants’ life. There was no arrangement made to take care about each persons and not even one passenger was satisfied with the service extended by the opposite party. The entire reasons for such mental and physical harassment during 10 days tour is caused only due to the greediness of opposite party and their intension to maximum profit without giving basic facility to the passengers which suffered huge financial loss and mental agony.

          Upon notice from the Commission opposite party entered into appearance and filed their version.

          In the version the opposite party stated that for the 64 group tour passengers a pre departure meeting was held on 25/04/2015 and the Managing Director of the opposite party had explained with the help of European Map and all about the tour and were given the itinerary to the passengers. Mr. Sushil Vijoy Arora had helped the tour passengers to check in, immigration formalities and for the security check up. He ensured that all the group passengers have the boarding pass and entry to the aircraft. The entire averments and allegations that no tour guide was available, the seats for the spouses were given differently and further that the food for the dinner was very bad and complainant being a vegetarian could not have food and she was forced to satisfy herself with water are absolutely false and hence denied. The averments that there was no transportation facility to take the complainant and fellow passengers from the Paris Gare du Nord Station to the hotel is absolutely false. As per the prevailing laws in Paris the coach for the passengers will not be allowed to the railway station. The coaches are allowed to park and receive the passengers in their respective parking areas which are located about 50 meters south of the railway station. The non-availability of porters to carry the baggage was clearly explained to the group passengers in advance. The passengers were given the opportunity to enjoy Paris by night by delaying the return to the Hotel and they very much enjoyed Eiffel Tower with the illuminations which were not in the itinerary. The further allegation that the bus was not having any modern facilities is absolutely false and hence denied. The two coaches are arranged were Mercedes Benz 45 seater luxury bus with all most modern facilities including mike, music, air conditioner, air heater, the indication of weather outside, the distance covered, the distance to be covered, most modern toilet with sanitation, push back and reclining seats, air flow control with curtains. Without these modern facilities long distance buses will not be allowed for foreign tourists in Europe.

          Italy being the place of historical monuments of centuries, the buses cannot enter in every corner of the city whether it is in Venice, Pisa, Rome or Vatican. All the sightseeing are by walk which was well explained prior to booking and during the pre-departure meeting. The opposite party has started the group foreign tours before anyone could do this in Kerala and has been a torch bearer throughout. Even Safari Channel the only Malayalam channel and its producer director Mr. Santhosh George Kulangara speaks very highly about the organization and the ability of the opposite party. Both of the tour leaders have taken good care for the confortable travelling. There is no truth or bonafide on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for in the complaint. Complainant has no cause action against the opposite party.

The complainant had produced 5 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A5 and cross examined as PW1. There is no evidence from the side of opposite parties.

From the above documents and also from the facts submitted by complainant and opposite party the Commission has to verify the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

On going through the contents of complaint, version and all other records, it can be seen that the complainant has booked a UK-Europe Tour Plan with the opposite party on 10/03/2015 by paying Rs.1,40,000/- which is evidenced from Exbt. A1.  Exbt. A2 goes to show that the opposite party had asked to pay Rs.91,000/- per person. Exbt. A3 is bank statement of transaction of the complainant issued by Union Bank of India. Exbt. A4 is an itinerary issued by the opposite party and Exbt. A5 is a booking receipt of Srilankan Airlines.

The Commission upon going through the records have observed that the complainant and the opposite party had agreed for a UK Europe Tour and accordingly the date was fixed and travel was arranged by the opposite party. What have been detailed in length covering the minutes of European Tour for 10 days by the complainant in which the complainant has making allegation regarding various inadequacies in accommodation and travel deficiency of sufficient amenities and conveniences not provided to the complainant, the quality of food and accommodation problem, difficulty felt in air travel and in the bus etc. can’t be ascertained or can’t be evaluated by the Commission with the assistance of any of the above records. The deposition given by the complainant as PW1 alone can’t be taken into account for assessing the details since he was also a co-traveller from the side of the complainants. In fact there is no means for the Commission in deriving an exact picture as to whether the complainant had afforded any deficiency of service in the flight or at Europe. Deviation if any from the itinerary (Exbt. A4) can’t be judged merely on the basis of the submission of the complainant.

Complainant has failed to prove the case on merit and hence Point No. 1 is proved against the complainant and therefore the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 27^th day of September, 2024

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President      

Sd/-

 Sreevidhia.T.N, Member           

Forwarded/By Order 

Assistant Registrar  

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A1:            Receipt issued by the opposite party

Exhibit A2:  Letter issued by the opposite party

Exhibit A3:  Copy of Bank Statement

Exhibit A4:  Itinerary issued by the opposite party

Exhibit A5: Booking receipt issued by Srilankan Airlines

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 555/2015

Order Date: 27/09/2024