O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
On 30-03-2010 the complainant booked European Magic tour with the opposite parties for travel on 30-05-2010. But just 2 days prior to the proposed travel when the complainant contacted the 3rd opposite party he informed that the tour could not be arranged and the complainant would have to wait longer. Later the complainants were converted to European Nano tour package by the opposite parties without the request of the complainants. However the opposite parties confirmed that the conversion was done at no extra costs at the time of booking. The complainants had informed the opposite parties previously that they would deviate from London so after the close of the tour the complainants needed the return tickets only 3 days later. The opposite parties confirmed that the return tickets only would be booked accordingly at no additional payment. However the opposite parties delivered the return tickets for the same date. In London Air port the complainants had to remit Rs. 7,000/- for penalty for section deviation
due to fault of the opposite parties. While booking the tour the complainants had booked for an extra night for the 24th June. But there was no such booking. They had to incur Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party agreed to refund that amount. Moreover the complainants obtained visa on their own and had to incur Rs. 600/-. The opposite parties are liable to refund an amount of Rs. 17,600/- to the complainants together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice of this complaint has been served on the opposite parties, but they chose to remain absent for their own reasons. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainants. Exts. A1 to A10 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
3. The points that arose for consideration
i. Whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 17,600/- from the opposite parties?
ii. Compensation and costs if any
4. Point No. i. Ext. A1 goes to show that the complainants had booked European Magic tour by paying Rs. 2,32,220/-. In Ext. A2 letter the opposite parties intimated the complainants that they would upgrade the tour to European Nano without any extra cost. In Ext. A3 letter the opposite parties informed the complainants that it could be possible for them to is possible to spent couple of days in London after completing the tour. Later in Ext. A5 the opposite parties intimated the complainant’s daughter that the return journey will be changed to 27-06-2010 Ext. A6 goes to show that the complainants had to pay 51 GVP for their subsequent journey in addition to the ticket fair. Though the complainants caused to issue lawyer notice highlighting their grievances, nothing has been done by the opposite parties. Contractually it was the duty of the opposite party to reserve the ticket in advance according to the choice of the complainant in which they failed, whereby the complainants had to spend the above amount for which the compensation. As per the Consumer Protection Act and its substantiating clauses this would amount to deficiency in service towards a consumer. However it is taken into consideration that the opposite party had shown their goodwill to refund Rs. 10,000/-. But that would not go to compensate the complainants here.
5. Since the primary grievance of the complainants has been not squarely no order for compensation. But costs have to be paid. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/-.
6. In short we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 17,600/- to the complainants together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2011
