Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/143/2019

M/s Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rupinder Singh Sadhrao - Opp.Party(s)

Kanisth Ganeriwala & Sukhveer S. Killianwali Adv.

26 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	143 of 2019
Date of Institution	15.07.2019
Date of Decision	26.02.2020

M/s Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd., Corp. Office: Plot No.29, 3rd & 4th Floor, Dynamic House, Maruti Industrial Complex, Sector 18, Gurugram -122015, Haryana through its Managing Director.

                                    …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

                                Versus

Rupinder Singh Sadhrao aged 52 years son of S.Sant Singh r/o Flat No.2123, Pepsu Co-operative Housing Building Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.                                

                                                ....Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.40 of 2019, which reads thus :-

“6.   In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

[i]            To pay Rs.40,341/- the extra cost of the tickets purchased by the complainant from Delhi to Dubai.

[ii]            To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

 [iii]          To pay Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation.

7.         This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No. (i) and (ii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides litigation costs.”

2.                The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “1.          The case of the complainant as alleged by him is that he had a telephonic call to Mr.Priyatosh, Manager/Partner of the OP-company regarding a holiday trip to Dubai who sent quotation dated 25.12.2018 (Annexure C-1) as per which he was required to deposit Rs.1,74,000/- for a three persons holiday trip from 02.01.2019 to 06.01.2019.  On 26.12.2018, he transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the  OP-Company and deposited a sum of Rs.74,500/-  in its account. Subsequently he sent the requisite documents to the travel agent.  The complainant asked for paper visas on whatapps from the travel agent-Mr.Swaroop Darshan on 31.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 who replied that the paper visas were to be obtained by 8.00 p.m.   However, the company executive apologized for the inconvenience and assured him that e-visas were to be made available by tomorrow and she asked the complainant to reach Delhi so that there may not be any delay in trip. It has further been averred that he reached Delhi Airport on 02.01.2019 at 9.30 A.M. and the flight time was 13.35. At 11.57 A.M., the complainant received only one e-visa of his son by e-mail and the officials of the company told that they were trying to get other two visas but the same were not received till the flight. He regularly sent messages and made phone calls to the travel agent regarding the visas but to no effect and ultimately he missed the flight because of non-availability of the visas.   He asked the OP to book their tickets on the next flight. Mr.Priyutosh Manager/Partner of the OP-Company told that they were trying to get visas but were not successful in doing so.  According to the complainants, the travel agents even did not arrange any stay arrangements for 01.01.2018 in any place of Delhi and that is why, he has to arrange his own stay at Delhi. At 9.25 p.m., the complainant received the visas on his mobile.  Subsequently, the complainant booked another set of tickets for SG 11 Spice Jet at 7.45 a.m. at 03.01.2019 to Dubai for Rs.40,341/- using his own funds and travelled to Dubai.  It has further been averred that he reached Dubai on 03.01.2019 in the afternoon and missed Abu Dhabi City tour due to late arrival.  It has further been averred that all the arrangements, which were promised by the travel agents as per the agreement, were not upto mark and even they failed to provide the promised services. It has further been averred that he sent many messages to the travel agents but no satisfactory response was received. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.”

3.                None was present on behalf of the Opposite Parties, despite service. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.03.2019.

4.                The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

5.                After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

7.                We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8.                Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that the impugned order was passed in an exparte manner on the ground that the notice sent to the appellant was received back with the report of ‘refusal’ but the appellant never received any summons from the court and it has come to the knowledge of the appellant when certified copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant at the same address. He further submitted that the travel package was booked by the complainant from Timeless Trips Pvt. Ltd., which is a separate entity from the appellant, as such, tour operator i.e. Timeless Trips Pvt. Ltd. was solely responsible for providing the services to the complainant but it was not a party before the Forum. He prayed for allowing the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1 and setting aside the impugned order.

9.                On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1.

10.              After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.              The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that the complainant booked the tickets for holiday trip to Dubai from 02.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.74,500/- (Rs.1,,74,500/-) vide invoice (Annexure C-2). It is also the admitted fact that the Opposite Parties were to arrange three e-visas for Dubai and the complainant received only one e-visa of his son by email but the Opposite Parties failed to arrange the other two visas till the flight. Thereafter, at about 9.25 PM, the complainant received the visas on his mobile, as such, he booked another set of tickets, for which, he paid an amount of Rs.40,341/- using his own funds. According to the complainant, he reached Dubai on 03.01.2019 in the afternoon, as such, he missed Abu Dhabi city tour due to late arrival and in that process, the complainant suffered a lot.

                   The plea taken by the appellant that it was proceeded against exparte with the report of ‘refusal’ but the said summons were received by it and it has come to the knowledge when certified copy of the impugned order was received on the same address has no value at all. Perusal of the proceedings of Forum file shows that notice was sent to the Opposite Parties through Registered Post and not in an ordinary manner, which was received back with the remarks “Refusal”. So, refusal is a valid service, therefore, the Opposite Parties were rightly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.03.2019. It is pertinent to note that if the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant on the same address then how the appellant did not receive the said notice. It means that at the time of receipt of notice, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 did not bother to receive notice and intentionally refused the same and chose not to appear, as such, it was proceeded against exparte.

                   The another plea taken by the appellant is that the travel package was booked by the complainant from Timeless Trips Pvt. Ltd., which is a separate entity from the appellant, as such, tour operator i.e. Timeless Trips Pvt. Ltd. was solely responsible for providing the services to the complainant and not the appellant. The said plea also has no value at all because on the one hand, it has been submitted that the tour operator i.e. Timeless Trips Pvt. Ltd. is a separate entity and on the other hand, the appellant in its appeal has given the explanation on behalf of tour operator. If for the sake of arguments, we believe that the appellant is a separate entity then why it gave explanation with regard to delay for e-visa on behalf of travel agent i.e. Timeless Trips Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, perusal of Annexure C-1 (letter), Annexure C-2 (receipt of Rs.1,74,500/-) clearly shows the name of “Travel Triangle” at the top of the letter head and invoice. It is true that in Annexure C-2 the name of Timeless Trips Private Limited was mentioned in the travel agent details but the said invoice shows that the money of Rs.1,74,500/- was received by the Company i.e. Travel Triangle. So, it is clearly proved that  Timeless Trips Private Limited and the appellant are hand in glove with each other, as such, both are equally responsible for the same.

12.              In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.              For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

14.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

February 26^th, 2020                                         Sd/-

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                   PRESIDENT
                       

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                          (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                       MEMBER

 

rb