Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

117/2014

P.K.Abdul Kadhar, S/o.Late.P.K.Mohammed Basheer, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by its Proprietor,Tamilnadu Haj&Umra Service, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.R.Sampah

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.03.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 22^nd DAY OF MARCH 2017

 

C.C.NO.117/2014

 

 

P.K.Abdul Khadeer, B.Sc.B.L.,

S/o Late P.K.Mohammed Basheer,

No.A-13, Brownstone Apartments,

No.9, Mahalingapuram Main Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. TamilNadu Haj & Umra Service,

Rep by its Proprietor,

Mr.M.A.Azeez,

No.1,2, Putnool Sardar Jung Street,

2^nd Floor, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. AR.Rahman Haj Service Pvt Limited,

Rep by its Authorized Signatory,

Mr.Faizal,

No.75, Sankara Flats,

Sait Colony, 2^nd Street,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 18.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.A.R.Sampath & S.Nagarajan

 

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : M/s.M.Kempraj, N.Ganesh &

                                                                     K.Manavalan

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                      :N.Jayachander &

     Mrs.Nidhin. K.Mookamkavil                                                            

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is a devotee person of Mohammedan Faith in keeping his spiritual and religious belief. The 1^st Opposite Party as a Haj & Umrah Travel package facilitator who would help the Haajees completes the journey and get spiritual fulfillment. The Complainant agreed to purchase a travel package from the 1^st Opposite Party for himself and his wife. The 1^st Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the said package from the Complainant and also informed him that  the travel booking and Visa Procurement will be handled by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Out of the said amount of Rs.45,000/- towards travel expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards procurement of Visa would be spent. The said tour package comprised of 15 members i.e 8 women & 7 men. The 1^st Opposite Party called a meeting for the above said person at a Perimet Hotel on 05.01.2014 and informed the travel arrangements.

2.  The group left Chennai on 06.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m by Saudi Airlines to proceed to Mecca Via Riyad & Jeddah and reached on 07.01.2014 at 1.30.a.m. Mr.Bismilla Khan who represented the agent of 2^nd Opposite Party informed that they should not leave the 1^st Opposite Party and further told that no arrangements for stay would be made as all rooms were occupied and hence food only would be provided. The 1^st Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs.2,49,000/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party for providing hotel accommodation and food to the pilgrims during the tour. The 2^nd Opposite Party also agreed to provide rooms and food and however they failed to provide the accommodation on reaching Mecca and left the pilgrims in a lurch. The Complainant and others protested for the treatment meted out to them. However, the 1^st Opposite Party under took great pains to accommodate 13 people in 3 rooms and two persons in the group. The Complainant was forced to share a room with 6 other persons with a facility of common bathroom and toilet.

3. The 2^nd Opposite Party provided 4 rooms and food at Maddina during the period of 12.01.2014 to 18.01.2014. Again all of them returned from Maddina to Mecca on 19.01.2014. The 2^nd Opposite Party again failed to provide rooms from 19.01.2014 to 21.01.2014.  The Complainant and other tour members forced to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  towards taxi charges.  The Opposite Parties duty bound to provide the tour participants at journey of reasonable comfort and facility in order to complete the pilgrimage and failed to do the same proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment and mental agony to the Complainant and others. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint praying to order the refund of Rs.50,000/- and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

 

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had booked a travel package for himself and his wife, for which he had paid Rs.50,000/- each, towards ticket charges, procurement of visa, hotel. The 1^st Opposite Party called for a meeting with the prospective Haajees at Periamet Hotel on 05.01.2014 and informed the pilgrims that all arrangement have beene made for stay at Darul/Abrar Hotel at Mecca through the 2^nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party had arranged food for the said meeting at free of cost and paid the hotel charge for the said meeting. No doubt, the holy pilgrim comprised of 15 members and journey took place on 06.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m by Saudi Airlines.  The ticket charges for each pilgrim towards to and fro expenses as Rs.26,940/-, Rs.5,000/- towards procurement of visa for each pilgrims, totaling Rs.31,940/- towards ticket and visa charges for each. Only the balance remaining amount of Rs.18,060/- was retained towards hotel accommodation, food, travelling expenses to Mecca and Madeena for 15 days for each. The 2^nd Opposite Party failed and neglected to arrange the accommodation at Mecca as promised and assured by him to this Opposite Party. This Opposite Party denies the allegations contained in para 7 of the Complaint as false. In fact, the pilgrims had not been kept in dark at Mecca without any facility to wash or refresh themselves and they had not been asked to eat the food standing near a old lift door, in a most undignified and indecent manner as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant along with other members were accommodated in a decent hotel viz., Al-Riyadh Grand on 07.01.2014 and had arranged food for decent food in a Mess, who are reputed providers of food for the holy pilgrims and incurred expenditure of 2250 riyals, which is equallent to Indian Rs.38,250/- (2250x17 per Saudi Riyal)  for 6 days from 07.01.2014 to 12.01.2014. Hence, on account of each members, the 1^st Opposite Party had also spent 60 riyals per member towards one day food. Hence, nearly 5400 riyals, he had spent for food for 6 days at Mecca, which is equivalent to Rs.91,800/-. Hence, on account of each members, the 1^st Opposite Party had spent Rs.6,120/- towards food.  This Opposite Party states that they had spent 86 riyals per members to bring them to Madeena in a Luxurious Air-conditioner Bus, totaling 1200 riyals towards travelling expenses to reach Madeena, which is equivalent to Rs.20,400/-. Hence, on account of each member the 1^st Opposite Party had spent Rs.1457/- for travelling to Madeena. Again from Madeena to Mecca, the 1^st Opposite Party had spent 1200 riyals towards travelling expenses for return to Mecca, which is equivalent to Rs.20,400. Hence, on account of each members, the 1^st Opposite Party had spent Rs.1,457/- from Madeena to Mecca. Hence, the 1^st Opposite Party had spent Rs.40,800/- towards travelling expenses from Mecca to Madeena and Madeena to Mecca. Hence, on account of each member, he had spent Rs.2,914/- towards travelling. There was no negligence on his part, even though the 2^nd Opposite Party  did not provide services as promised in the meeting at the hotel to the pilgrims, having receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- towards lodging/boarding, food and travel expenses, this Opposite Party had made timely alternate arrangements to the pilgrims to complete their journey without any hindrance. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party is an agent of 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party arranges accommodation to the customers of 1^st Opposite Party according to the terms and conditions of the agency. There will not be any privity of contract between the customers of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party has to act according to the order of the 1^st Opposite Party. In the case of the Complainant also the 2^nd Opposite Party has only arranged the accommodation of the customer of the 1^st Opposite Party. It is correct that the booking process and visa procurement will be handled by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The payments for the travel were received only by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not received any amount from the Complainant for arrangement of accommodation. This Opposite Party has not made any promises to the Complainant as alleged in the Complaint. This Opposite Party has only acted upon the instruction of the 1^st Opposite Party. It is also alleged by the Complainant that there is evidence for the receipt of 2,49,000/- received from the 1^st Opposite Party, is incorrect and not true. The 1^st Opposite Party has only paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,49,000/- as alleged by the Complaint. This Opposite Party is only an agent of the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the 2^nd Opposite Party. This Complainant is not a consumer of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the 1^st Opposite Party is a Haj and Umrah Travel package facilitator the Complainant agreed to purchase a travel package for himself and his wife and the 1^st Opposite Party organized comprising of 15 members of  tour package  consisting of 8 women and 7 men and the 2^nd Opposite Party agreed to do the work of travel booking process and visa procurement  and before commencing the tour a meeting was arranged at Periamet Hotel on 05.01.2004 and the Opposite Parties gave instruction to the Complainant and other pilgrims  and all of them left Chennai on 06.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m by Saudi Airlines to proceed to Mecca via Riyad and Jeddah and reached Mecca on 07.01.2014 at 1.30 a.m. and the 2^nd Opposite Party  agent  Mr.Bismilla Khan received them  and after completion of religious  vow at Mecca they left for Maddina and from there returned to Mecca on 09.01.2014  and  after completing their pilgrimage they returned to India.

          8. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties have committed deficiencies is that?

 i) No accommodation provided by the Opposite Parties as assured by them in the meeting and

ii) Very worst food provided during the tour programme.

The Complainant also  pleaded in the Complaint that on reaching  Mecca this 2^nd Opposite Party agent Mr.Bismilla Khan informed than no arrangement for stay was made as all rooms were occupied  and however he had provided rooms at Madeena for the days 12.01.2014 to 18.01.2014  and again when  returned to Mecca the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to provide rooms for the days 19.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 and the Opposite Parties have also nearly collected a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Complainant and other passengers towards for travel expenses.   

          9. The 1^st Opposite Party received a sum of Rs.50,000/- for each person and  he in turn paid the amount to the 2^nd Opposite Party to render the service. The 1^st Opposite Party and Complainant would say that a sum of Rs.2,49,000/- was paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party  by the 1^st Opposite Party out of the funds collected from the pilgrims. However, the 2^nd Opposite Party had not arranged the room at the visiting places for the accommodation of the pilgrims and hence the 1^st Opposite Party arranged accommodation and paid accommodation charges through Ex.B4 to Ex.B6 at different places. However, the 2^nd Opposite Party would reply that there was no deficiency in his service on his part and only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- paid to him and he never to agreed to provide accommodation to the pilgrims.   

          10. The 2^nd Opposite Party agreed to render service for the amount received from the 1^st Opposite Party  for booking,  visa procurement and other services. The 2^nd Opposite Party would contend that he had not agreed to render any service to the pilgrims and he had not received any money from them and hence there is no privity of contract between the pilgrims and this Opposite Party and he agreed to render service only to the 1^st Opposite Party as an agent of him  and therefore the Complainant cannot be considered as a Consumer in respect of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party participated in the meeting convened by the 1^st Opposite Party on 05.01.2014 at Perimet with the pilgrims. He also admits that he received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1^st Opposite Party to render service in respect of booking process and visa procurement to the pilgrims. Therefore actually the 2^nd Opposite Party after receiving money of the pilgrims from the 1^st Opposite Party and rendered the above services to them. Therefore, in such circumstances the Complainant is not a Consumer with relation to the 2^nd Opposite Party is not accepted and the same is rejected.

          11. The Complainant alleged the deficiency that very worst food  was provided. This was denied by the 1^st Opposite Party. To support this contention that there is no material adduced by the Complainant that how the worst food was. Therefore, considering the circumstances during the tour programme the worst quality of food supplied is not proved by the Complainant.  

          12. With regard to accommodation was not arranged at Mecca, the 1^st Opposite Party would contend that he had paid the amount from him and provided accommodation all the pilgrims in different hotels which could be proved through Ex.B4 to Ex.B6 bill. The 1^st Opposite Party would further contend that though the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to arrange accommodation he had arranged the accommodation by paying his money.  Ex.B4 to Ex.B6 bills bear the signature of the 1^st Opposite Party issued to his name proves the payment of money for accommodation made by him for the pilgrims. Therefore even if the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to arrange the accommodation, the 1^st Opposite Party arranged the accommodation for the pilgrims as evidenced in Ex.B4 to Ex.B6 bills. Therefore, none of the deficiencies raised by the Complainant have been proved by him and therefore we hold that in respect of the Complainant the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.      

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of March 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Pamphlet issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Travel plan sheet issued by 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 31.12.2013                   Receipt issued by the 1^st Opposite Party for

                                                    Rs.1,00,000/-

 

Ex.A4 dated 03.01.2014                   Receipt issued by the 1^st Opposite Party for     

                                                    Rs.1,00,000/-

 

Ex.A5 dated 19.12.2013                   Air tickets for the Complainant for 06.01.2014

Ex.A6 dated 28.03.2014                   Notice to Opposite Parties

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement cards

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated 19.12.2013                   Electronic Tickets for 14 members

Ex.B2 dated 31.12.2013                   Receipt issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party for

                                                Rs.1,00,000/- towards hotel accommodation and  

                                                    food.      

 

Ex.B3 dated 03.01.2014                   Receipt issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party for

                                                Rs.1,00,000/- towards hotel accommodation and

                                                     food

 

Ex.B4 dated 07.01.2014                   Bill issued by AI-Riyadh Grand Hotel

 

Ex.B5 dated 08.01.2014                   Bill issued by Dar Al-Alfaz Hotel

 

Ex.B6 dated 18.01.2014                   Bill issued by Dar Albloshi Hotel

 

Ex.B7 dated 09.06.2014                   Suit filed by the 1^st Opposite Party against the 2^nd

                                                Opposite Party for compensation in O.S.No.     

 

Ex.B8 dated 18.07.2014                  Legal notice issued on behalf of the Plaintiff

 

Ex.B9 dated NIL                      Acknowledgement Card

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                                ……. NIL ……..

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT