DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/328/2016
No. DF/ Central/ Date
B.K. Gupta,
S/o Jai Dayal Gupta,
R/o R-51, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Paras Holidays Private Limited,
321-322, Gold Plaza Building,
Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint was filed by Sh. B.K. Gupta (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date pleading therein that Paras Holidays Private Limited (in short OP) is engaged in conducting foreign tours on package basis. OP offered special price of Rs.7,35,642/- to complainant and his wife towards foreign tour package to USA from 08.06.2016 to 28.06.2016 which was accepted by the complainant. OP enhanced the payment of Rs. 7,35,642/- to final offer of Rs. 7,48,164/-. On insistence of OP additional amount of Rs. 12,000/- was paid by the complainant.
As per itinerary, OP had undertaken that the customer would be transferred to the hotel at New York on arrival from India on day 01 of the foreign tour. The complainant arrived at New York on 08.06.2016 at around midnight along with his wife on flight arranged by OP. Since OP failed to keep up their commitment for transporting to the hotel at New York on complainant’s arrival along with his wife, the complainant was forced to make his own arrangement for hiring a taxi to the hotel which involved a payment of USD 60 which was equivalent to Rs. 4,098/- at the then exchange rate of Rs. 68.3/-.
Sh. Prakash Chadha who acted as Escort for OP for the first 5 days of the tour had picked up 21 crew members including complainant and his was very rude. On complaint of the crew members as well as complainants the OP changed the escort from the 6th day of the tour. OP had booked stay for all the crew members at places far off the city limits at Washington, Harrisburg, Niagara Falls, Orlando, Miami, Los Angeles and San Franscisco which curtailed the site seeing time for the crew members involving extensive travel time from hotel to the city area intended for site seeing.
Complainant has sought refund of a sum of Rs. 12,522/- charged by OP in excess of Rs. 7,35,642/-which was negotiated price of the foreign tour of the complainants, Rs. 4,098/- paid by the complainants towards taxi fare at New York because of failure on the part of OP to arrange for arrival transfer and Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency in service.
- On receipt of notice, OP appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement. It is stated that complainants approached OP late and booked the tour package after finalization of the standard tour for the group and the tickets in the airlines were not available for 08.06.2016 and the complainants requested that they could visit in another airlines before the scheduled date of group departure. It is further submitted that the complainants preferred ‘Virgin Atlantic Airlines’ which was via London to New York and was expensive by Rs. 12,000/- for two persons instead of regular flight of ‘United America Airlines’ which was directly from New Delhi to New York (U.S.A.). It is also submitted that the complainant agreed to pay the fare differences of Rs. 12,000/- for two persons.
It is denied that OP had promised that he would arrange for transportation of complainants in New York on their arrival at the New York airport to the hotel. It is stated that complainant preferred arrival at New York on 08.06.2016 which was one day before the scheduled arrival of the group with a view to meet and spend one day’s time with his relatives and also assured to OP that their relatives could pick them from the airport and drop them at the hotel.
It is also stated that complainant had not deposited the payment of any receipt on hiring a taxi.
- Parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard complainant in person and Sh. J.K. Jain, counsel for OP.
- Complainant himself has placed on record final payment schedule shown as (Annexure-4) showing departure date as 08.06.2016 where fare difference is Rs.6,000/- per person and total cost Rs. 7,48,164/-.
- Complainants have stated that they were coersed by OP to pay Rs. 12,000/- on account of fare difference illegally. E-mails exchanged between parties are relevant and are reproduced as under:
Vide their e-mail dated 23.05.2016 at 05:53 PM to OP, complainants requested OP to consider grant of senior citizens discount to them.
OP vide its e-mail dated 23.05.2016 at 06:13 PM stated
“Thanks for your mail sir, this is the best which we can give you. And we done all the bookings for this group if you really want to join this group please confirm me asap.”
OP vide its e-mail dated 24.05.2016 at 04:59 PM to the complainants stated that:
‘As we discussed over the phone kindly check the final pricing as we discussed.
ROE 67 =including gst on 3.63% or 6,000/- pp Air Fare difference.”
Vide their e-mail dated 01.07.2016 at 03:56 PM to OP complainants stated that they agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per person on account of fare difference which was “not clear and understandable”. That shows that complainants did agree to pay Rs. 6,000/- person on account of fare difference. If it was not “clear and understandable” they should not have paid the same or asked for clarification from OP to make it clear and understandable.
From their e-mail dated 23.05.2016 at 0:13 PM it is indicated that OPs had finished all the bookings for that group by that time and complainants were requested to confirm whether they wanted to join the group or not. Complainants never protested at that time that additional payment of Rs. 6,000/- per person towards fare difference was not clear to them or not acceptable to them.
Next grievance of the complainants is that OP had booked hotels at places far off from the city limits at Washington, Harrisburg, Niagara Falls, Orlando, Miami, Los Angeles and San Franscisco which curtailed the site seeing time for the crew members involving extensive travel time from hotel to the city area intended for site seeing.
Complainants were provided with the itinerary (Annxure-5) placed on record at Page 25, which indicated names of the hotels where OP had made arrangements for stay of the tour group including complainants which means that complainants were already aware of the hotels where their stay was booked by OP. Since the names of the hotels were already sent to the complainants in regard to the said tour, no objection can be raised later on stating that the hotels were away from the city.
Next grievance of the complainants is regarding the taxi fare. Annexure 5 placed on record at page 17 under the head itinerary it reads that on day 01 “on arrival to New York you will be transferred to your hotel”. It indicated that OP had undertaken to transfer the customers from the airport to the hotel in New York. It is also submitted that the complainants did not go with the group. Further it is submitted that complainant’s booking was done on 11th hour when the group tour booking had already been finalized. It was also stated that complainants had told OP that they had their relatives at New York who would come to pick them up from the airport and after spending a night with their relatives, they would join the group on the next day. Complainant submitted during the course of arguments that he had no relatives in New York. There is nothing on record that complainants had waived their right to be transferred from the New York airport to the hotel. Since OP was bound to transfer the customers from the airport to hotel in New York on day 01 and having failed provide transportation from airport to hotel at New York, OP is directed to reimburse the fare of taxi paid by the complainants i.e. Rs.4,098/- along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on _____ Day of _____ 2019.
