CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th  day of July, 2017

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                           Date of filing: 13/07/2015

                  : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

                  : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/101/2015

1.   Eappan Thomas,

           S/o.Thomas,

          Kizhakkekara House,

          Kanjirappuzha Post,

          Mannarkkad, Palakkad.                         :   Complainants

2. Rosalint Thomas,

W/o.Eappan Thomas,

Kizhakkekara House,

         Kanjirappuzha Post,

         Mannarkkad, Palakkad.

        (Advocates M.C.Kuriachan & Manoj Ambatt)                 

Vs

Peace Holy land mission                        

         Vettukallel Arcade,

        Alphonsa Nagar,

        Bharananganam Post, Pala

Rep.by Babu Thomas,

Puthiyaparambil

Bharananganam Post, Pala,

Kottayam.                                                :     Opposite party

        (By Adv.Mini Francis)             

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma K.P.Member,

The above complaint is filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and claiming compensation from them for the reason that they failed to provide amenities during the journey and also not acted as per the promise assured by their brochure.  The complainant states that being attracted by the advertisement made by the opposite party in newspapers, they have booked two tickets for pilgrimage to European countries by paying a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- (Rupees one lakh and eighty eight thousand only) each. The said journey was proposed to start on 11/05/2015. Based upon the promise made by the opposite party the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as advance on 06/03/2015. The complainant states that the opposite party had collected the said amount from his house at Kanjirappuzha, Mannarkkad.  Later on 03/05/2015 the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 3,26,000/- (Rupees three lakh and twenty six thousand only) to the opposite party, and the said journey started on 11/5/2015 from Nedumbassery Airport.  The complainant further submits that the opposite party had taken the pilgrims only to ten countries as against the promise of 12 countries.  The opposite party has omitted the two main countries namely Spain and Portugal from their agenda which the complainant states that he had the most desire to visit those countries.  The complainant alleges that they had more passion and desire to visit those countries and to visit the Fathima Church at Portugal.  He had also stated that the opposite party does not provide amenities as promised by their brochure, did not arrange accommodation in standard hotels and does not provide tourist guides which made their journey tedious. The opposite party had arranged accommodation at hotels which does not have lift facilities by which the complainant had suffered due to poor health and cardiac issues. The opposite party assured the complainant’s that he will arrange food and accommodation throughout the journey and tickets through air and super fast trains and high quality facilities for visiting several pilgrim centers. The opposite parties failed to provide wheelchair at aerodromes for the 1^st complainant who was a cardiac patient which he had informed to the opposite parties in advance by which he had suffered lot of health issues during his journey from Nedumbasseri to Colombo and Vatican City.  Moreover opposite parties took the pilgrims in ordinary buses from Paris to Lurde at about 1200 kms and does not provide a standard guide to explain about the cities and Holy places.  The complainant alleges that the opposite parties had gained at about 1,00,000/-per head by not providing the amenities as promised in their brochure.  The complainants submits that they were very much depressed by not visiting the Holy places which they desire most and thereby opposite party is bound to compensate them for the mental agony and physical sufferings during their journey.  The complainants further submits that opposite party had collected only Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees one lakh and eighty thousand only) from his co passengers for the journey and had collected an excess amount of 8,000/- each from them.  The complainant claims that opposite party is bound to pay Rs.50,000/- each as damages for the mental agony suffered by them by not visiting the Holly places of Spain and Portugal as promised by the opposite party. Hence, the complainants had approached before the Forum claiming an amount of Rs.3,26,000/- from the opposite parties for the mental agony and sufferings and for the loss of amenities during the journey along with cost of this litigation. 

Notice was issued to the opposite party.  Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations of the complainant. Opposite party is an institution who had conducted several tour programmes including European countries and they had never failed to oblige by the terms and conditions mentioned as per the brochure.  They had decided the tour programme for 17 European countries at an amount of Rs.1,88,000/-each.  The tour programme was conducted at the supervision and control of three priests.  The opposite party alleges that the complainant has no jurisdiction to file a complaint before this Forum.  The complainant had booked the tickets and paid the amount to the opposite party at their office at Pala.  No part of the cause of action has taken place at Palakkad and there is no territorial jurisdiction for the complainant to file a complaint before this Forum. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed on that basis alone.  On verification of the receipt produced by the complainant it can be seen that the amount was paid by the complainant at the opposite party’s office at Pala. The opposite party states that journey was arranged completely by air and superfast trains and high standard A/c buses.  In European countries ordinary buses are not allowed for the journey. The complainant had alleged baseless allegation against this opposite party .  He was provided with wheelchair at all aerodromes by the opposite party.  The accommodation was arranged for them at three star and four star hotels. High quality food according to the passengers choice was provided to them, in time, by the opposite party.  The opposite party further states that the complainant had not disclosed about the cardiac diseases at the time of booking the journey. If they had disclosed about the health conditions at the time of booking, the opposite party would not have allowed them to accompany the journey.  Programme was planned only for 16 days but due to the ill health of the complainant, it exceeded another 36 hours. The opposite party has also suffered great difficulties and financial loss due to the ill health of the complainant.  Only due to the non co- operation of the complainant, the journey had to be extended for another 3 days.  The opposite party could not take the passengers to Fathima just because they were delayed in reaching to Paris and had to stay one more day in Paris by which they missed the plain, which they had booked earlier, and the journey was delayed as planned by them.  The passengers had to travel by bus from Paris to Lurde because of the above reason.  The opposite party cancelled the journey to Portugal because most of the passengers were suffering from various diseases, they were not in a position to travel to Portugal by bus and moreover they were informed that the church at Fatima was demolished for renovation.  Not only that the temperature at Poland was below 7 ℃.  The tour agency has the right to cancelled the programme at such conditions.  Instead of Spain and Portugal opposite party had taken the passengers to Luxemburg and Srilanka and another important places of that locality.  Since most of the passengers were above 60 and the climate conditions were also not favourable, and due to strange foods supplied most of them were facing difficulties by which programme was delayed as arranged by the earlier schedule.  Opposite party had to take an extension of 36 hours as arranged earlier.  They had collected Rs.1,88,000/-(Rupees one lakh eighty eight thousand only) from each passengers and the complainant’s  had agreed for the same before the journey and had paid it.  Since the passengers were tired due to their age they were given time for taking rest on several occasions by which the opposite party could not conducted the programme as per their arranged schedule.  Unnecessary delay happened only from the part of passengers.  The complainant has filed this complaint only with an anticipation that the opposite party may take legal actions against him for the unnecessary delay caused from his part .  There is no bonafides in the complaint and the complainant is not eligible to any amount as compensation.  In fact, the opposite party has suffered great loss due to the act of the complainant’s.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

The complaint and filed chief affidavit.  Opposite party filed application (IA 401/15) seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.  IA was allowed and complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts.A1-A8 were marked.  Opposite party also filed chief affidavit along with witness list.  Complainant filed IA 304/16 seeking permission to cross examine the opposite party.  Opposite party was cross examined as DW1.  Exts.B1-B7 were marked.  Complainant filed another application as IA 409/16 seeking permission to reopen the evidence and receive additional affidavits of complainant (PW1).  Opposite party filed affidavit of witnesses.  Complainant filed objections in receiving the witness list. Counsel for opposite party seriously objected.  After hearing the matter the witnesses were allowed to adduce evidence.  The complainant had filed application to reopen the evidence for the purpose of changing the deposition made before the Forum.  The application was filed after a delay of ten months.  Hence it was dismissed vide separate order.  Witnesses of opposite party were also examined as DW2&DW3.  Evidence was closed, and matter was heard.

Issues that arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction?

2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

Issues 1, 2 &3

The counsel for the opposite party submits that the no part of the cause of action regarding the complaint has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant had paid the amount at their office at Pala and the receipt has been issued from their office.  Whereas the complainant alleges that the opposite party has collected the amount from his residence at Kanjirappuzha, Ma nnarkkad.  During examination the opposite party has denied the fact that he had come to the Palakkad to collect the advance amount from the complainant at Kanjirappuzha.  Hence it is the duty of the complainant to prove that amount was collected from Kanjirappuzha.  There is no evidence before the Forum to prove that amount was collected from the complainants residence  at Kanjirappuzha, Mannarkkad.  Ext.A3 (The receipt issued by the opposite party does not reveal the fact that it was issued from Kanjirappuzha, Mannarkkad) admittedly the rest of the cause of action has taken place at Alfonsa Nagar, Bharananganam which is not within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Moreover the witness examined by the opposite party (DW2) has also stated that the complainant and his wife had paid the advance amount at the opposite party’s office at Pala.  In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the above complaint lacks territorial jurisdiction and hence complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Hence the complaint was dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th   day of July 2017.   

Sd/-

     Smt. Shiny. P.R

                         President

                             Sd/-

             Smt. Suma. K.P

                           Member

                                                                                    Sd/-

           Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                          Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Original brochure of Peace Holy Land Mission

Ext.A2- Original chart of journey programme

Ext.A3 –Cash receipt dated 06/03/2015 issued by Peace Holy Land Mission

Ext.A4-  Photocopy of passport entry (with objection)

Ext.A5 series-Flight E-tickets(2 nos)

Ext.A6 series-Boarding Pass(2 nos) (with objection)

Ext.A7 series-photographs of complainants(7 nos)

Ext.A8-Time schedule of Srilankan Airlines

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Original brochure of Peace Holy Land Mission

Ext.B2- Original chart of journey programme

Ext.B3- Service confirmation voucher (with objection)

Ext.B4- abed chair provide to the complainant’s (objection)

Ext.B5-Google weather report

Ext.B6-Distance of lured to Fathima

Ext.B7-PHM Bharananganam Room Booking Confirmation

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Eappan Thomas 

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1-Babu Thomas

DW2-Babu Xavier

DW3-Ulahannan

Cost Allowed

Nil