Delhi

East Delhi

CC/325/2015

Neeru gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL HOSPITALITY - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 325/15

 

Smt. Neeru Gandhi

W/o Shri S.D. Gandhi

R/o D-167, West Patel nagar

New Delhi – 110 008                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.

             

Royal Hospitality Services

Through its Proprietor/Partner

Sh. Silvister Anthony / Ms. Renu

A-94 B, 1^st Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II

New Delhi – 110 024                                                        …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 07.05.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 03.04.2018

Judgement Passed on: 04.04.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Smt. Neeru Gandhi against Royal Hospitality Services (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant booked a tour package through airplane for four nights and five days w.e.f. 18.12.2014 to 22.12.2014 from Delhi to Ooty, via Bangluru and Mysore with M/s. Royal Hospitality Services (OP).  She deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash against the total amount of Rs. 1,33,600/- and received the payment receipt dated 11.12.2014. 

            It was stated that on 17.12.2014, OP intimated the complainant that tickets were available for 19.12.2014.  On 18.12.2014, Mr. Bunty of OP supplied the Air India Tickets for 19.12.2014 and voucher of stay in the hospital, but not the return tickets.  It was informed by Ms. Renu of OP that she will e-mail the return tickets to the complainant at the earliest. 

            On 19.12.2014, complainant and her family check in Hotel Golden Residency at Bangluru.  The hotel refused to serve the dinner and breakfast inspite of the fact that OP gave in writing that breakfast and dinner will be provided in the hotel.  

            On 20.12.2014, when complainant asked the driver named Sachin to take them to Mysore, he refused on the plea that balance payment of      Rs. 35,000/- be paid first to him otherwise he will not drive the car.  When the complainant made the payment of Rs. 35,000/- to the driver, only then the driver started the car for Mysore Journey. 

            On 22.12.2014 at 8.00 p.m., the complainant received the message on phone that Air tickets of 23.12.2014 of 10.30 a.m. flight was booked by OP instead of previous email according to which flight was on 23.12.2014 at 4.30 p.m.  The complainant contacted OP and was told that due to the technical reasons, the flight was pre-poned. 

            As there was no choice, the complainant checked out the hotel at 9.45 p.m. which was scheduled for stay according to tour package and travelled with her family in night which was dangerous, risky and not comfortable.  The driver was compelled to take longer route due to entry closed in night in forest areas, therefore, the complainant and her family reached at Airport at 11 a.m. and missed out their flight.  The complainant contacted OP, who refused to co-operate.   

            It was further stated that the complainant made inquiry at airport and came to know that no flights were pre-poned due to any technical reason.  The complainant was compelled to take the return tickets from her own pocket due to the mischievous and nasty tactics/malpractices of OP.  Hence, she has prayed for directions to OP to pay the amount of return tickets alongwith 18% interest; Rs. 3,00,000/- compensation on account of unfair trade practice, humiliation, harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.   

 3.        In the reply filed on behalf of M/s. Royal Hospitality Services (OP), they have taken various pleas such as this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint; the schedule of travelling was changed on the request of the complainant on 16.12.2014.  It was stated that OP requested the complainant that they will be able to give return air ticket at last moment as the tour was confirmed on the last moment.

            OP further obtained the complete tour package except air tickets and taxi services from M/s. Rover Holidays Pvt. Ltd. having office at Faridabad.  OP requested the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 33,000/- to Mr. Sachin for taxi charges and the complainant gave her consent for the same. 

            It was stated that air tickets on 23.12.2014 at 4.30 p.m. was merely a performa air tickets sent at the instance of the complainant and air tickets sent to complainant via email dated 22.12.2014 was issued after the consent of the complainant.  It was submitted that departure in the morning was the specific request of the complainant as she had to join the office on 24.12.2014.

            It was again submitted that forum of district South-II was having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Other facts have also been denied.   

4.         Rejoinder to the WS was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint.

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the contents of the complaint.

            No evidence has been filed by OP.

6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant have been taken care of as counsel for complainant did not appear to argue in person.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there has been no deficiency on their part as they provided all the services which were agreed to.  He has pointed out the contradictions in the complaint itself, particularly in para 7, she has stated that hotel staff did not provide the dinner and they were asked to take dinner in the nearby hotel.  She further states that the food was very poor and substandard.  From this, counsel for OP have stated that she has stated that food was poor and substandard, the question of her taking food at nearby hotel does not arise. 

            He has further pointed out that complainant herself was late due to which her flight missed.  He has made reference to para 22 of the complaint where she has stated that there was heavy traffic in the Bangaluru and they reached at airport at 11 a.m., therefore, they missed their flight.  However, counsel for complainant who have filed the written arguments have repeated the contents of the complaint.  Thus, from the evidence on record, it is evident that complainant missed the flight due to her late arrival at the airport.  When she herself was at fault, the question of any deficiency on the part of OP does not arise.  Not only that, the evidence on record does not show any deficiency in the services provided by OP. 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there has been no deficiency on the part of OP, therefore, the complaint does not survive and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.   

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

Member                                                                              President