For the Complainants : Mr.Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties no.1 to 2 : Mr.Vinay Vyas, Advocate
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
::::: JUDGMENT :::::
Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :-
The Opposite party no.2 is a Travel Agent / Tour Operator whereas the Opposite party no.1 is their Franchisee. The Complainants are from the same family. They had booked tour for Europe through the Opposite party no.1 and had paid Rs.1,80,000/- each, total sum of Rs.9,60,000/- to the Opposite party no.2. (herein after reputed the Opposite party only). The tour was known as “The Grand European Discovery” starting from 10.05.2008 conducted by the Opposite party no.2. Mr. Shashank was tour guide. The tour consisted various tourist spots at France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Holland and it was for 17 days.
2 The Complainants alleges that the Opposite parties had not managed the tour properly and some of the tourists’ places / spots were excluded. No proper arrangements of traveling as well as lunch and breakfast were made. During the course of the judgment, we will discuss the allegations about the inconvenience caused to the Complainants on particular day. The Complainants have sought declaration of deficiency in service and recovery of the compensation from the Opposite parties.
3 The Opposite party no.2 – Raj Travels and Tours contested the complaint by filing written version of defence and admitted that the Complainants had participated in “Grand Discovery of Europe, 2008” which was for 15 nights and 16 days from 10.05.2008 ending on 26.05.2008 at Landon. The Opposite party no.2 has admitted to have received consideration from the Complainants. However, the Opposite party has denied the allegations about inconvenience caused to the Complainants and deficiency in service. We will refer to explanation given to the Opposite party with regard to the same while we will discuss evidence adduced by the parties.
4 The Complainants filed affidavit of evidence of the Complainant no.1 and annexed to the same copy of e-mail sent to the Opposite party on 28.05.2008 i.e. on returning to India. The Complainants have also produced tour itinerary as well as the copy of the brochure provided by the Opposite party. The Opposite party filed affidavit of its authorized representative. The Opposite party also filed written arguments. We have gone through the complaint, written version of defence, affidavits, documents and written notes of arguments. We have heard the Complainants in person and learned advocate for the Opposite party.
5 Following points arises for ours consideration and our findings thereon are as follows.
Nos. | Points | Findings |
1 | Whether the Complainants have proved that the Opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service by not providing proper services to the Complainants during their Europe Tour ? | Yes |
2 | Whether the Complainants are entitled to recover compensation from the Opposite party ? | Yes, Rs.50,000/-. |
3 | What order ? | Complaint partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS :-
6 Along with the complaint, the Complainants have annexed route map, which is at page no.6 of the complaint. The said map gives ideas about various places which were to be visited by the Complainants during the course of their tour. At page no.9, there is copy of each day activity. The Complainants have also produced copy of the brochure giving details of the places to be visited on each day during the tour.
7 The Complainants along with other tourists of the group landed at Paris Air Port on 10.05.2008. That day, the group was supposed to visit Eiffel Tower 3rd level and River Seine Cruise, sightseeing at Paris. The Complainants have narrated the alleged insisted of inconvenience caused them and each day of tour. Their e-mail, dated, 28th May, 2008 gives particulars of the alleged mismanagement of each day of tour.
8 According to the Complainants, on the day of arrival at 10th May, at Paris Air Port, the tour guide was not present. They had to spend two hours at Air Port to find out the coach. Because of the delay, they could not visit Eiffel Tower and River Seine Cruse. The Opposite party in the written version of defence explained that Air India Flight arrived late at Paris Air Port and by the time entire group came out, it was almost 3.00 p.m. and Bus left Air Port at 3.30 p.m. and reached Paris Story by above 4.30 p.m. Group was required to spend one hour at Paris Story, which is a show for about one hour. Thereafter, group was taken for dinner and returned to hotel at 9 p.m. Thereafter, hardly any time was left to visit the places of sightseeing. Therefore, two items of the sightseeing on day one were dropped. According to the Opposite party, they were covered on the next day. The Opposite party has attributed inconvenience to delay in arrival of Air India Flight. It be noted that delay in arrival of the flight is not unusual. Anticipating this situation, the Opposite party should not have arranged sightseeing on day one. The group had already traveled from Bombay to Paris and thereafter, they were taken for sightseeing. In the mean time, some time was lost in picking up the coach and traveling to the place “Paris Story”. Thus the Opposite party is not justified in saying that inconvenience was caused due to delay in arrival of the Flight. In order to cover the tour within short period, perhaps, sightseeing was arranged even on the day one. This could be taken as instance of mismanagement.
9 On day two, the group was supposed to visit Louver Museum and other places. It is alleged that the driver of the coach took 4-5 rounds of the Museum to find out place for parking. At Eiffel Tower, the tour guide spends two hours to buy Tickets. According to the Complainants, no tickets in advance were booked. There is no material on the record that such facility was available. Because of loss of time, the Complainants could not shop at shopping place “Printemps” which was included in the Itinerary. The Opposite parties in paragraph no.9, 10 and 11 of the written version of defence have justified the events; those had taken place on that day. According to the Opposite party, it was Sunday and being one of the Seven Wonders of the World, there was tremendous rush and there was long queue. It appears that the situation was beyond the control of the Opposite party.
10 It is alleged in e-mail that on 14th May i.e. on day fifth, the group was supposed to visit Jungfrau and Harder Kulm. According to the Complainants, snow covered Mountain “Jungfrau” was covered but place Harder Kulm, another mountain was dropped. Moreover, at Jungfrau, there was no tour guide.
11 The Opposite party in paragraph no.17 of written version of defence has explained that the whole group spent more time at Jungfrau and were late in returning back to catch the train for Interlaken sightseeing. No time was left to visit another mountain “Harder Kulm”. According to the Opposite party, majority of tourists in the group were tired and unanimously decided to spend more time in Lake City for shopping and walking.
12 According to the Complainants, on day 8, the group was supposed to visit Lake Como and Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Complainants alleges that the group visited Tower Pisa but place Lake Como was dropped and tour leader just informed them that while returning from Venice, they would visit the same. However, that place was not included and it was dropped. The Opposite party in paragraph no.14 of the written version of defence has explained that visit to Lake Como was dropped as nobody was interested in going down the lake which could have taken extra two hours, of other day, Itinerary, but the Complainants, in paragraph no.14 of the rejoinder have denied these statements. In any case, this shows that the tour was thoroughly congested and even two items of the day’s Itinerary could be covered.
13 On day 9th, the group was supposed to visit Vatican Church and other places. According to the Complainants, the group arrived at the Church at 6.15 p.m. and the tour leader informed the group that the Church was closed. According to the Complainants, Church was open till 7.00 p.m. but tour leader was not aware of the same and the group missed famous place of sightseeing at Rome. The Opposite party in paragraph no.15 of written version of defence has denied these allegations and stated that the group did visit “Vatican Church” and some of the passengers even visited Museum known as “Sistine Chapel From Inside”. According to the Opposite party, the group did not move fast and could not maintain timing. In the affidavit of rejoinder filed by the Complainants, we find that in paragraph no.15, the Complainants have not reiterated that visit to Vatican Church was dropped. But it is stated there that some of the members of the group were Senor Citizens and the Opposite party should have taken into consideration this fact while arranging tour Itinerary.
14 The Complainants in their complaint as well as e-mail has alleged that place sightseeing by known as Colosseum was shown from out side on 19th May, i.e. on day 10th, which was item in the Itinerary of day 9th. According to the Complainants, they got confirmed from another Officer of the Opposite party that place “Colosseum” was to be shown from inside and as such was included in the Itinerary. The Opposite party in its written version of defence has not given reply to these allegations, which appeared under the caption of 9th May, in e-mail.
15 It is alleged by the Complainants that on 24th May, they were supposed to board Cruise named by “P & O Cruise” as mentioned in Itinerary. However, they were taken by another Cruise named “Stenaline Ferry” to London. It is further alleged that P & O Cruise was supposed to go on Port named Hull, which is four hours journey from London whereas Stenaline Ferry took them to a port which is two hours journey. There was vast difference between the amenities provided at P & O Cruise and Stenaline Ferry. In the e-mail, dated, 28.05.2008 under the caption 24.05.2008, the Complainants have given details the fares of both the Cruises as well as amenities which show that Stenaline Cruise was cheaper as compared to P & O Cruise. The Opposite party in paragraph no.16 in written version of defence has denied these allegations and has claimed that amenities at both the Cruises were same but rate may vary depending on Cabin Size and amenities like window or balcony, etc. These explanations are hardly satisfactory. In the affidavit of rejoinder in paragraph no.16, the Complainants have further, elaborated and have stated that the Opposite party had promised countless programmes. But there was nothing like the assured on the Stenaline Cruise. The Complainants have further stated that the Opposite party saved € 52 (52Pounds) per person by shifting the Cruise.
16 The Opposite party in written version of defence as well as in written notes of the arguments has taken stand that some of the tourist’s spots were dropped with the consent of the tourists including the Complainants. The Opposite party, further, taken stand that some of the tourists spots covered on the next day. They have also taken stand that because of heavy traffic and crowd. There was delay in purchasing tickets at same centres. The Opposite party, however, has not filed affidavit of Tour Guide –Mr. Shashank Banarjee, who was along with the tour. The written version of defence filed by the Opposite party is affirmed by Mr.Bhalchandra Shelke, who is their Authorized Representative. He had not accompanied the Tourists Group. Thus, Mr. Bhalchandra Shelke had no personal knowledge about the events those had taken places during the tour. His written version of defence is personally based upon information furnish by others. Whereas the allegations made by the Complainants in the complaint as well as e-mail and affidavit of rejoinder are based upon their personal knowledge, they being tourists.
17 In this scenario, we hold that the Opposite party has failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the Complainants regarding mismanagement during Europe Tour. It does not make any difference only because other tourists have not filed similar complaints. It is common knowledge that only some of alert and keen consumers seek redress about their grievances while majority of the consumers overlook the deficiency in service and prefer to sleep over their rights. We, therefore, find the Opposite party –Tourist Company guilty of deficiency in service.
18 The Complainants have sought refund of entire charges paid by them to the Opposite party. They had paid sum of Rs.1,80,000/- each towards cost of Tour to the Opposite party. It is an admitted fact that the Complainants did visit most of the tourists spots mentioned in the Itinerary. Thus, the Complainants are not entitled to refund of entire sum paid by them to the Opposite party towards traveling charges. Having considered, nature of the grievances of the Complainants, nature of deficiency in service, we make the assessment of the compensation to sum of Rs.50,000/- as a whole for the Complainants. We find that this order of the compensation will meet the ends of Justice.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
::::: ORDER :::::
(1) Complaint is partly allowed.
(2) It is hereby declared that the Opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service in giving services to the Complainants during their “The Grand European Discovery” tour.
(3) The Opposite party is hereby directed to pay to the Complainants compensation in sum of Rs.50,000/- as a whole.
(4) The Opposite party shall comply with this order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order else shall pay interest @9% from the date of the expiry of the period till realisation of the entire amount.
(5) Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
