ORDER (ORAL) By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), SOTC Travel Services Private Limited and SOTC World Famous Tours, stated to be a division of Petitioner No.1, both formerly known as Kuoni Travel (I) Private Limited, call in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.232 of 2008. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding recorded in the order dated 08.01.2008, passed by Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1018/04, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not providing adequate assistance to the Complainants, who had booked their foreign tour through the Petitioners, at the Colombo Airport on 29.05.2004, the State Commission has reduced the amount of compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, awarded by the District Forum in favour of each of the Complainants’, -3- the husband and wife, for the mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service, to ₹1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants. On 13.02.2017, when the Petition came up for motion hearing, upon hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioners at some length, notice was issued to the Respondents/Complainants confined to the quantum of compensation. In furtherance thereof, son of late Colonel Om Prakash Gulia, one of the Complainants’ and Smt. Sulochana Gulia, the second Complainant are present in person. Accordingly, I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Complainants on the question of quantum of compensation awarded vide the order impugned in this Petition. Mr. Singhania, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has vehemently submitted that since the flight was re-scheduled by the Airlines, and being only a tour operators, the Petitioners had no control over such change, they cannot be held liable for any kind of negligence or deficiency on the part of the Airlines. It is also pleaded that the Complainants were duly attended to by the Airport staff at Colombo and were in fact put up in a five star hotel for one additional night. Per contra, the son of the Complainants, while supporting the afore-noted finding returned by the Fora below, relating to the quality of -4- services provided by the Petitioners, submits that having regard to the humiliation and harassment faced by the Complainants at the Airport, where no representative of the Petitioners was available to assist them on a foreign land, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. Having considered the matter in the light of the material on record, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present Revision Petition. In so far as the question, whether the Petitioners were deficient in rendering services to the Complainants and any kind of liability for the mental agony and harassment allegedly undergone by them could be fastened on them, is concerned, the afore-noted plea on the point being attempted to be raised at this point of time, already stands rejected when notice in the Petition was directed to be issued to the Respondents. As afore-said, the issue for consideration is whether any interference is called for on the quantum of compensation. It needs little reiteration that in such kind of cases, there is no prescribed formula to determine the quantum of compensation and an element of guesswork is always involved to arrive at a reasonable and adequate compensation, albeit it is not an arbid exercise based on the whims of an Authority. Undoubtedly it has to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, having perused -5- the Complaint, wherein a specific plea to the effect that “at Colombo Airport no authentic person from the side of the Petitioners was available”, which is not specifically rebutted by the Petitioners in their reply to the said paragraph except for a bald denial, I am inclined to agree with the following observations made in the order impugned in this Petition, in this behalf: “In any event, the respondents were first time visitor to Malaysia. They did not have their own means and resources to arrange the tour. That is why they hired the services of appellant. The plight of the said tourist cannot be established but has to be assessed. They must have suffered physically as well mentally. Respondent No.1 was the senior officer being Colonel in Army of India. So appellant must pay reasonable compensation to the respondents.” Having arrived at the said conclusion, I do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in Revisional Jurisdiction conferred on this Commission. Accordingly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is pointed out that a sum of ₹75,000/-, inclusive of statutory fee, had been deposited by the Petitioners in the State Commission and a further sum of ₹50,000/- has been deposited in this Commission. If that be so, while remitting the amount due to the Complainants in terms of this order, the Petitioners shall be entitled to account for the said -6- two amounts totaling ₹1,25,000/-. The said amounts shall be released to the Complainants forthwith on their moving appropriate applications before both the said Fora. At this juncture, Respondent No.2, one of the Complainants, states that out of the amounts directed to be paid to the Complainants, some amount may be used for a public cause. In view of the said generous offer, it is directed that out of a sum of ₹50,000/- deposited by the Petitioners in this Commission a sum of ₹25,000/- shall be transferred to the Consumer Legal Aid Account and the balance amount shall be released to the Complainants. The balance amount due to the Complainants in terms of this order shall be remitted by the Petitioners to the Complainants by means of a Demand Draft in favour of Smt. Sulochana Gulia, within four weeks from today. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. |
