PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
That the Complainant decided to undertake a package tour of Europe which was widely published by Opposite Party and styled as “Mini Europe” for 9 nights/10 days. Opposite Party had given very attractive presentation to the Complainant and lured to the Complainants to undertake aforesaid tour. The Complainants paid total sum of Rs.3,48,000/- (Complainant No.1 Rs.1,15,000/-, Complainant No.2 Rs.1,15,000/- and Complainant No.3 Rs.1,18,000/-) to the Opposite Party in August, 2002. Alongwith complainant, the Complainant has produced copy of the brochure published by Opposite Party and receipts of aforesaid payment issued by the Opposite Party.
2) The tour was scheduled to commence from 0230 hours on 14/09/2002. The Complainants were supposed to reach Paris on 14/09/02 at 0700 hours, local time. However, the Complainants were actually given flight starting from Mumbai on 14/02/02 at 230 hours, which took route via New Delhi and reached at Paris at about 1700 hours, local time. The Complainants reached their hotel at Paris at about 1900 hours on day 01. Thus entire day 01 was spent in the flight and that day the Complainants did not have any sight seeing or other city tours as per scheduled Programme.
3) It is submitted that the Complainants spent 03 days and nights at Paris and were taken to Villars on 17th evening. The Complainants spent 03 days and 03 nights at Villars. Thereafter as per schedule Programme 02 days and 02 nights were supposed to be spent at Interlaken. However, to utter surprise and shock of the Complainants this tour was not conducted. As per schedule and the Complainants were taken to Interlaken only for two hours on 19th evening and were brought back to the hotel at Villars same evening. The Opposite Party changed the schedule without any prior intimation to the Complainants and the Complainants, being under control of Opposite Party did not raise any dispute regarding the change.
4) The Complainants were then taken to Mount Rigi on 20 September morning. Next day i.e. on 21 September the tour to Rhine Falls was organized and instead of bringing back Complainants to Mount Rigi for night stay as per schedule Programme, the Complainants were abruptly dropped at Zurich railway station on 21 September at 6.00 p.m. No tour guide or escort was provided to the Complainants. Two food packets were given to the Complainants out of which one was spoiled. The Complainant No.1 is senior citizen and Complainant No.2 has been suffering from back pain and both suffered tremendous physical pain and mental agony waiting at Zurich railway station with none to guide or help. The Complainants were given railway tickets for over night train journey from Zurich to Paris. The Complainant’s spent night in the train instead of at hotel. The train left Zurich railway station at 2300 hours on 21st September and reached Paris in the early morning on 22nd September. The Complainants suffered more serious hardship at Paris. The Complainants had to spend from their own pocket for taxi fare from Paris Railway Station to the Airport and had also spend for snakes, lunch, etc. since no provision was made by the Opposite Party. The Complainants had to then wait like beggars at Paris Airport whole day of 22 September till 1800 hours without any lodging and boarding. Their flight for Mumbai departed at 1800 hours reaching Mumbai next day on 23rd September early hours. The Complainants had to undergo tremendous physical strain, mental agony and harassment due to the negligent attitude of the Opposite Party. The Complainants has produced chart of actual tour alongwith complaint at Exh.‘C’. According to the Complainant, instead of schedule 10 days they had actually spent 7 days on the tour. Therefore, the Complainants sent notice to Opposite Party through their advocate on 20/11/02. The Opposite Party replied to the said notice through their advocate and thereby denied their liability.
5) It is alleged by the Complainant that due to the deficiency of the service of the Opposite Party their tour Programme was curtailing by 3 days without any intimation. Opposite Party were negligence for not providing any proper food, shelter and escort to the Complainant from 21st September at 1800 hours when they were dropped off at Zurich railway station to 22 September at 1800 hours. The Complainants had to spend from their own pocket for food and local travel and without any escort. Therefore, the Complainants have filed this complaint.
6) The Complainants have prayed to direct Opposite Party to pay to the Complainants Rs.2,544/- (equivalent to Euro 53) being the expenses incurred by the Complainants on lunch, travel, snakes, etc. The Complainants have further prayed Rs.1,04,400/- being proportionate cost of 03 days curtailed from the original tour of 10 days. The Complainants have also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of this proceeding.
7) In support of this complaint, the Complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit and enclosed documents as per list of documents.
8) Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainants contending interalia that complaint filed is bogus and not maintainable under the law. The Complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum and on this ground also complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9) According to the Opposite Party, due to the change in flight timings and schedule, the Complainant reached late in Paris. However, Opposite Party did not cancel any of the sightseeing Programme from the Complainant’s itinerary of Paris. The Complainant in his complaint has not denied the said fact. As per Opposite Party the sight seeing of the city tour on the first day as per the schedule Programme was undertaken on third day in the Paris. Therefore, there is neither any reduction of any day nor cancellation of any item from the itinerary and hence, there is no substance in the grievance raised by the Complainant.
10) Opposite Party has denied allegation made in the complaint para no.5 contending that the allegations made are baseless and ill-founded. Instead of night stay at Interlaken, the Complainants were given night stay at the most beautiful location and in four star hotel at Villars in the Swiss mountain as the Opposite Party had the facility of the cooks working in the said hotel and provided delicious Indian food to the tourist. It is submitted that the hotel Chalet Oberland at Interlaken was not available due to the rush. The itineraries in the brochure are printed almost about 10 months in advance and it was a tentative itinerary giving details about places and sight seeing included. At that time hotel bookings and air lines booking were not done. Hotels, Airlines and the itineraries are finalized once booking are received. Accordingly the said itinerary and hotel were subject to the change without prior intimation to the passenger as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the tour contract signed by the Complainant and also printed on the said brochure. The Opposite Party has produced copy of the terms and conditions alongwith written statement which is marked at Exh.‘A’. It is submitted that city of Interlaken is very small town with one main street for shopping. The Complainants infact did shopping from the shop known as “Kirchhoffer” in Interlaken. The Opposite Party have denied allegations made in the complaint para no.6 & 7 and submitted that since flight of the Complainant changed and Complainants were to fly back to India from Paris instead of Zurich. The Opposite Party arranged for Eurail ticket for the overnight journey from Zurich to Paris to enable the Complainants to take the flight from Paris on the next date. The Opposite Party had also arranged for a packed dinner and breakfast for the next day for the Complainants. The Overnight train journey from Switzerland to France was very comfortable and a memorable experience in a foreign country. The Opposite Party has denied allegations of none availability of the tour escort or abruptly being dropped the Complainants at Zurich station contending that the allegations are false and baseless.
11) As regard, the averment of Complainant in para no.8, Opposite Party has submitted that since flight for Mumbai was in the evening, the Complainants were required to wait at the Airport lounge of the Paris International Airport Charles–de-Gaulle which is very good Airport. The allegations made by the Complainants that they waited like beggar at International Airport are absolutely false and reflects only the nature of the Complainants. It is contended that allegations of physical pain, mental agony and harassment made by the Complainants are imaginary and false.
12) The Opposite Party has strongly denied Complainants allegations that there is reduction of 3 days in the schedule Programme of the tour. According to the Opposite Party, there is no deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
13) Suhas Chandrakant Sawant, Authorized signatory of the Opposite Party had filed his affidavit in support of his written statement. The Complainants had filed affidavit of evidence. The Complainant has filed written argument. The Opposite Party has also filed written argument. We heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate of Mr.Vinay Vyas for the Opposite Party.
14) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?
Findings : Yes.
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainants are entitled refund, compensation and cost of this proceeding as prayed ?
Findings : As per final order.
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- It is undisputed fact that Opposite Party is carrying on business as a Tours and Travels Operators. Opposite Party had widely published brochure of their package tour of Europe styled as “Mini Europe” for 9 nights/10 days. Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced brochure published by Opposite Party at Exh.‘A’ and same is admitted by the Opposite Party. Brochure of ‘Mini Europe’ tour published by the Opposite Party appeared attractive to the Complainants and so in the month of August, 2002 the Complainants paid total sum of Rs.3,48,000/- to the Opposite Party as stated in Exh.‘D’ annexed to complaint and the said fact is also admitted by the Opposite Party.
As per schedule Programme, the tour was commenced on 14/09/02 at 0230 hours from Mumbai and supposed to reach Paris on 14/09/2002 at 0700 hours, local time (01 day). It is grievance of the Complainants that their flight from Mumbai started at 0230 hours on 14/09/02 which took route via New Delhi and arrived at Paris at about 1700 hours, local time. The Complainants reached their hotel at Paris at about 1900 hours, on day first. Thus entire day one was spent in the flight and all that day the Complainants did not have any sight seeing or other city tours as per scheduled Programme. The brochure of Mini Europe Tour published by the Opposite Party on day 01, after arrival of the flight at Paris, Opposite Party was supposed to take Complainants and other tourist to the Eiffel Tower and to show maximum view of the Paris from the 3rd level of Eiffel Tower. Thereafter Opposite Party were supposed to take to tourist for the city tour of Paris around place de la Concorde, Arc de Triomphe, Champs Elysees, the world famous Opera House, the magnificent Notre Dame Cathedral, world famous Louvre Museum and then to their hotel. Opposite Party in their written statement has admitted that due to the change in flight time and the schedule, the Complainants reached late at Paris. According to the Opposite Party, they did not cancel any of the sight seeing Programme from the Complainant’s Itinerary of Paris. The sight seeing of the city tour on the first day as per the schedule Programme was undertaken on the 3rd day and therefore, there is not reduction of any day or cancellation of any item from the attitude. It is true that in the notice as well as in the complaint, the Complainants have not made any grievance about reduction in sight seeing change places mentioned in brochure but facts remains that on the first day as per the scheduled Opposite Party flight reached late at Paris and so there was no sight seeing of Paris as mentioned in the Programme of day first. It appears that on the third day hurriedly all the sightseeing places were covered.
Secondly it is grievance of the Complainant that as per scheduled Programme stated in the brochure, they were supposed to spend 02 days and 01 night at Interlaken. However, tour was not conducted as per the scheduled Programme and they were taken to Interlaken only for 02 hours and on the same day evenings, they were taken to Villars itself and brought to the hotel at Villars. It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that hotel Chalet Oberland at Interlaken was not available due to heavy rush. Therefore, Opposite Party dropped the tourist in a Four Star Hotel at Villars in the Spic Mountain at beautiful location and delicious Indian food was served to tourist. The Opposite Party had facility of cooks working in the same hotel. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the contract signed by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are entitled to make change in the schedule Programme and will inform the change to the tourist on the spot.
It is main grievance of the Complainant, as per the schedule Programme of 9 nights/10 days, Opposite Party was supposed to take Complainants and other tourist Mount Rigi, Rhine Falls and to Kirchhofer, drubba and on that day Opposite Party was supposed to take tourist back in the evening to Mount Rigi for night stay and on the next day they were supposed to take them to Zurich Rhine Falls and flight back to India. According to the Complainants, the Opposite Party curtailed the tour Programme and on the 9th day instead of taking them to the hotel at Mount Rigi for night stay, Opposite Party abruptly dropped them at Zurich railway station at 6.00 p.m. No tour guide or escort or shelter was provided. Train tickets were given to them alongwith tour food packets, out of which one was spoiled. The Complainant waited at Zurich railway station till 2300 hours and then boarded in the train. Instead of night stay in hotel, they spent night in the train and reached Paris early in the morning on 22nd September. It appears that from Paris Railway Station the Complainant went to Paris Airport by taxi and incurred the expenses of taxi as well as breakfast, lunch and they were waiting at Paris Airport till 6.00 p.m. At 6.00 p.m. they boarded in the flight from Paris and reached Mumbai on 24th March. It appears that the Opposite Party curtails tour Programme by one day. After the Complainant were left at Zurich Railway Station, no tour guide or escort was provided to them and the Opposite Party did not make any arrangement for the travel from Paris Railway Station to Paris Airport and further there was no proper service from the Opposite Party to take care the Complainant from Zurich Railway Station till the Complainant boarded at Paris Airport.
It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party or negligence in taking proper care of passengers but due to the change in the flight the Opposite Party arranged EVM tickets for the Complainants and journey by train was comfortable journey. The Opposite Party has not specifically denied allegations that no arrangement was made by the Opposite Party from Paris Railway Station to Paris Airport and for their breakfast, lunch, etc. In the notice dtd.20/11/02 sent to the Opposite Party that the Complainants have specifically stated that Opposite Party have curtailed tour Programme by 01 day. They have given details of the amount spent by them and the Opposite Parties have given a cheque of sum of Rs.2,726/- to the Complainants towards the taxi fare incurred by them. Considering the aforesaid facts, we hold that the Complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2 :- The Complainants have prayed to direct Rs.2,544/- (Equivalent to Euro 53) being the expenses incurred by them for lunch travel, snakes, etc. In the notice dtd.20/11/02 the Complainants have given details of the expenses incurred by them for breakfast, taxi fare, lunch. Snakes, etc. The amount stated is total 111 Euro. Out of that the Opposite Party has paid amount of Rs.2,726/- by cheque towards taxi fare incurred by the Complainant. Considering the fact, we hold that the Complainants are entitled to recover remaining amount of 53 Euro i.e. of Rs.2,500/- from the Opposite Party.
The Complainants have prayed for refund of Rs.1.04,400/- being proportionate cost of 03 days curtailed tour from the original tour of 10 days. As discussed above, it appears from the evidence on record that in fact one day tour was curtailed. The Complainant in their notice dtd.03/03/03 have specifically stated that the Opposite Parties have curtailed their tour by one day and called upon the Complainant to refund Rs.3,800/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. Further they have claimed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. As the schedule tour was curtailed by 01 day and the Complainants were abruptly dropped at Zurich Railway Station, the Complainants must have suffered mental agony and harassment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay total of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant with interest @ 10 % p.a. on Rs.2,500/- + 50,000/- (i.e. 52,500/-) from 03/03/2003 till receipt of entire amount to the Complainant. Further we think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this complaint to the Complainant. Therefore, we answer point no.2 accordingly.
For the reasons discussed above, we pass following order –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.241/2003 is partly allowed.
ii. Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.52,500/- (Rs. Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) to
the Complainant with interest @ 10 % p.a. on aforesaid amount from 03/03/2003 till realization of entire
amount to the Complainant.
iii.Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) as cost of this
complaint to the Complainant.
iv.Opposite Party shall comply with the aforesaid order within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of
this order.
v.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
