PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
The Complainants are related to each other. Opposite Party No.1 are engaged in carrying on business as tourist in Mumbai under trade name of SOTC, a divisional of Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Opposite Party is Divisional Head Office of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 is concerned Sr. Manger in charge of Customer Services.
2) It is submitted that somewhere during March, 2006, SOTC had published an advertisement in various newspapers regarding their tour called “Bhraman Mandal Trip to Far East (Malaysia & Singapore). It was represented by the Opposite Party that they are experts in arranging tour abroad and further claimed to be the ‘Best Outbound Tour Operator’. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.4 by making representation induced Complainants to book for the said tour which was to depart on 29/04/06 for 8 days. When the Complainants contacted SOCT they were told that tour cost of Bhraman Mandal of SOTC was Rs.38,500/- per head. Accordingly, the Complainant paid advance of Rs.1,54,000/- by cheque dtd.06/03/06 to Zenith Travels for 4 persons. The Complainant No.5 Mrs. Mugdha Sarnaik did not pay on that day as her passport was under renewal. Relying on the reputation and assurances given by the Opposite Parties the Complainants opted to pay higher cost.
3) It is submitted that some time in first week of April, 2006, the Travel Agent Mr. Parab of Zenith Travels – Opposite Party No.4 got a call from Opposite Party No.1 informing that the tour cost has been increased by Rs.11,200/- per person. This was the first instance of unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties. The Complainants were told that one Mrs. Brinda Sonawala was coordinating the tour. The Complainants No.1 to 4 gave cheque to Mr. Parab, dtd.20/04/2006 for Rs.44,800/- towards the differential cost of the tour. The Complainant No.5 Mrs. Mugdha Sarnaik paid Rs.48,500/- by cheque dtd.03/04/06 and Rs.1,200/- by cheque dtd.21/04/06 making payment of Rs.49,700/-. The Complainant No.6 Mrs. Chitra Datar are also paid booking amount of Rs.49,700/- by cheque dtd.10/04/06. Thus, the Complainants have paid in all Rs.2,98,200/- being the full cost of the tour in respect of all the 6 Complainants.
4) It is submitted by the Complainants that on 23/04/06 Opposite Party No.4 Mr. Parab, sent all the 6 tickets to the residence of Complainant No.1. The Complainants were shocked and surprised to see that all the tickets were of 5 days tour and with wrong dates. After payment of sum of Rs.2,98,200/- to the SOTC for period of 2 months, SOTC did not bother to contact the Complainants nor informed about the change of itinerary, visas, tour programme or any other briefing regarding the tour. An amount paid by the Complainants for 8 days tour was appropriated by the Opposite Parties towards 5 days tour with change of date, itinerary, etc. without the consent of the Complainants and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. After receipt of aforesaid ticket the Complainant No.1 & 4 immediately rushed to the office of SOTC alongwith Mr. Parab – Opposite Party No.4 to make enquiry to know whether there was inadvertent error. The Complainants were made to sit for two hours and nobody bothered to find out the purpose of their visit. After making Chaos they were taken to Mrs. Brinda Sonawala. When the Complainants showed her the tickets and started making complaints Mrs. Brinda Sonawala told that the Bhraman Mandal tour has been cancelled since the quorum was not full as other group had cancelled at the last minute. Mrs. Brinda Sonawala tried to persuade the Complainants to join some other package tour, schedule to leave on 11th May which was not at all convenient to the Complainants. However, the Complainants were in panic as their old parents had already come from Pune for 29th April tour and other Complainants had already got sanctioned leave from their respective office 15 days in advance. The Opposite Party failed and neglected to informed well in advance about the cancellation of Bhraman Mandal tour and to take their approval before changing the date and itinerary and unilaterally appropriating the money paid by the Complainants for 8 days tour to 5 days tour. The Complainants demanded refund of money which SOTC said will take about week for refund.” Mrs. Brinda Sonawala tried to persuade the Complainants to opt for another tour by offering better deal and to include Bangkok/Pattaya in the package. The Complainants reluctantly agreed for another tour suggested by Mrs.Brinda Sonawala as they had already planned everything. Once again SOTC offered a new package tour which included Thailand and was of 11 days/10 nights including breakfast and dinner (without lunch). New tour was schedule to depart on 3rd May. Mrs.Brinda Sonawala assured to compensate the Complainant for the mistake of SOTC. The tour cost was Rs.55,653/- per person, totaling to Rs.3,33,918/- for 6 persons. Mrs. Brinda Sonawala gave discount of Rs.12,150/- in the total tour cost. Since Rs.2,97,771/- had already been paid by the Complainants, the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- paid by cheque dtd.24/04/06, drawn in favour of Kuoni Travels, towards full and final consideration. The Complainants have produced copies of Booking Form and Terms & Conditions of tour alongwith complaint at annexure ‘C-2’ collectively and copy of itinerary at annexure ‘C-3’.
5) It is alleged by the Complainant that right from the date one booking of the tour, upto the departure from India and there experience during the entire tour was very bitter. They were to fly to Bangkok by Air India flight at 4.25 a.m. on 3rd May, 2006. The Complainant did not get their tickets as well as passports with visas and insurance policies till 8.00 p.m. of 2nd May, 2006. Therefore, the Complainants were panic since morning of 2nd May and at the last Complainant No.1 went to SOTC Office to see Mrs. Sonawala but she was on leave. Then the Complainant No.1 met one of the assistants to enquire about the tickets. He told that visas have still not come and as soon as they get the passport with visa, he will arrange to send them to her residence. Inspite of repeated telephonic calls SOTC people never bothered to make even a single call to inform about the status. At last at around 9.00 p.m. of 2nd May, the Complainant received the tickets, passport, etc. The SOTC’s representative handed over 4 insurance policies excluding the policies for her parents who are senior citizens. After enquiry, representative of SOTC who are regular tour organizers of this kind should have known the procedure for insurance of the senior citizens and should have informed the Complainants at the time of booking itself so that all the necessary documents would have been provided by the Complainants. Not providing aforesaid necessary information amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and as a result the Complainant had to take big risk of not having medical policies of old parents.
6) It is alleged by the Complainant that at the airport there was no SOTC representative to assist the Complainants for check in, immigration, etc. In Air India flight, the Complainants were not offered beverage as well as hard drinks, though it was an international flight. Food also was not so good of the standard they boast of. On arrival at Bangkok at around 10.30 a.m. on 3rd May SOTC Representative Ms. Synthia was present but the Complainants had to wait for an hour as other group had to arrange for visa on arrival. Ms. Synthia later decided to send Complainants to the Hotel Royal Benja which is in a very narrow lane and not suitable for family groups. At that hotel SOTC representative Mr. Cyrus Doctor made Complainants to wait in the lobby and started introducing himself and briefing tour programme. The Complainants were tired and exhausted and had missed breakfast. Even a glass of water was not made available to the Complainants. After an hours lecture the Complainants were offered 2 triple occupancy rooms as against their booking for accommodation of 3rooms of double occupancy. Mr. Doctor was reluctant to arrange for 3 rooms stating that there are no instructions. The Complainants were forced to occupy 2 rooms and later at around 5.00 p.m. Mr. Doctor came and apologized and handed over key of 3rd room, admitting that it was mistake on SOTC’s part.
7) It is submitted that on the next day i.e. 4th May, the Complainants were stationed in the same hotel without any sightseeing and the breakfast was typical English type which the Complainants were forced to digest even though it was not suitable as the elderly people had Diabetic problems. On the 5th day also there was European type of breakfast served and then Complainants were taken for city tour and then proceeded to Pattaya which took about 4-5 hours and reached at about 7.00 p.m. The Complainants were allotted 3 rooms on different floors. The Complainants were taken to Indian Restaurant for dinner and food was not cooked by SOTC cook as promised. Restaurant was sub-standard and without AC. The locality was also horrible. It is alleged that the Complainants were literally treated like beggars. On 6th May, the Complainants were of stationed the same hotel and breakfast which was typical European type was on 26th floor. After breakfast the Complainants were taken to see Coral Island where the Complainants had to pay for everything like paragliding, under see walk and other water games. According to the Complainants, Mrs.Sonawala of SOTC had promised to have included all in the package like other tour agencies who provide free paragliding. On 7th May, the Complainants left Pattaya for Kuala Lumpur at around 10.00 a.m. and reached Bangkok airport and paid taxes 500 BAHT each and boarded Thai Airways flight and reached Kuala Lumpur airport at about 7.30 a.m. 2 SOTC representatives were present at the airport but they said that they will takes the Complainants to the hotel only when other group gets on arrival and so had to wait at the Airport for an hour. The Complainants were taken to Hotel Mandarin Court and were allotted the rooms which were very small with stinking carpets and very small beds. On 8th May, the Complainants were taken for City tour. In the brochure it is mentioned that Petronas towers and KL tower will be shown but it was just from the road. For interning the Complainants were to buy tickets and had to pay everywhere. On 9th May, the Complainants saw Genting highlands and Batu Caves. Only those sights seeing which were free were shown. At 6 p.m. the Complainants reached Genting Highlands and checked in Hotel First World Plaza which was good. However, for dinner the restaurant was at 20 minutes walking distance from the said hotel and no transport facility was provided for elderly people. On 10th May, the Complainants were taken for outdoor theme park but could not enjoy due to heavy rain. Knowing the condition the SOTC could have advised and given indoor theme park as raining is usual in May. On 11th May, breakfast was horrible and left for Singapore. While traveling in the bus, SOTC tour guide Mr. Calvin told tourist that Singapore immigration is very strict and one cannot carry liquor bottle, cigarette packets or chewing gum. Mr. Pethe of SOTC did not mention this at Bangkok while the Complainants were buying 12 bottles of hard liquor at the cost of Rs.15,000/-. As it was difficult to the Complainants to get disposed off 12 bottles of hard liquor in such short time the Complainants had no other alternative but to throw all the bottles on the road before reaching Singapore immigration. The Complainant had to sit in the bus for nearly 2 hours as there was unclaimed luggage in the bus due to SOTC mismanagement. At Singapore the Complainants checked in to the Hotel Golden Landmark which was not as per itinerary. Since the Complainants reach late could not go for Night Safari. The Dinner provided in the same hotel was very pathetic and tasteless. It is submitted that SOTC in their Brochure had promised “Indian Meals prepared by STOC very own Indian Chef and served to you inside your hotel.” However, never provided Indian meal prepared by their Indian chef to the Complainants.
8) It is submitted that on 12th May, breakfast was horrible cooked by Chinese people. The Complainants had to pay for everything at the time of sight seeing. The representative of SOTC Mr. Yoh tried to dupe the Complainants by not taking to Tower Lift as Sentosa Island, even though, the Complainants had paid for the ticket. The complainants were told to vacate the room at 12 O’clock or pay S$50 from their own pocket while the flight time was 9.40 p.m. In such circumstances the Complainants had to roam around with aged parents from 12 noon till 6.00 p.m. as no alternate arrangements were made by the SOTC. The complainants were once again at a shock to know that that their flight was not direct to Mumbai but via Hyderabad. It is also deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. It is further alleged that the Complainants noticed from their passport that there were endorsement of US $500 which the SOTC had purchased in their name but never informed or utilized for or by the Complainants. Thus, SOTC had committed very serious offence under Forex. It is alleged that there was total mismanagement of the tour and thereby the Complainants suffered physically and mentally.
9) It is submitted that immediately after return to Mumbai the Complainant No.1 visited officer of Opposite Party No.2 and narrated bad experience during their trip and requested for the explanation. The Complainant No.1 received letter dtd.10/08/06 from Opposite Party No.2 admitting their faults with explanation for various episodes that it took place during the trip. The Opposite Party offered to refund Rs.5,000/- per person which the Complainant did not accept. The Complainant had produced aforesaid letter at annexure ‘C-5’. By letter dtd.26/08/06, Opposite Party No.2 once again tried to justify their shortcomings offered to refund Rs.7,500/- per person. Copy of said letter is at annexure ‘C-6’. The Complainant No.1 addressed letter dtd.26/08/2006 to the CEO of SOTC narrated their experience during the tour and asked for the explanation. The Complainant also made complaint to the Senior Inspector of Walkeshwar Police Station. According to the Complainant, the said tour should be deemed to have been fully frustrated by the false assurance, unhealthy accommodation, unsuitable food etc. and therefore, they have field this complaint.
10) The Complainants have prayed to declare the Opposite Parties to be guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. They have requested to direct Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to refund to the Complainants sum of Rs.3,51,771/- being the cost of the tour paid by the Complainant alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from 24/04/06 till realization. The Complainants have also prayed to direct Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to pay to the Complainants sum of Rs.2 Lacs as a compensation for mental agony and physical hardship. The Complainants have claimed Rs.50,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses incurred from the Opposite Party No.1 to 3. Alongwith complaint, the Complainants have produced copies of documents at page No.20 to 53.
11) Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have filed their common written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and deserves to be dismissed with cost. According to the Opposite Parties there is no deficiency in service or they have not committed unfair trade practice therefore, Complainant’s claim for refund of Rs.3,51,771/- with interest and for compensation and cost is liable to be dismissed.
12) Opposite Parties have admitted that office of Opposite Party No.1 is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. However, it is contended that Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are having their respective offices outside the jurisdiction of this Forum and the Complainant has not obtained leave under Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act to proceed against Opposite Party No.2 to 4.
13) It is submitted that prior to filing of this complaint Opposite Parties vide their letters dtd.10/08/06 and 26/08/06 denied all the allegations made by the Complainants about their unpleasant experience. Opposite Parties have confirmed statement averments and contentions raised in their letter dtd.10/08/06 and 26/08/06.
14) It is submitted that SOTC is a Branch of Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Bandra (E), Mumbai -51. Kuoni Travels is worldwide organization and acquired SOTC India Ltd. in 1996. Although, the Complainants are aware of the said fact, the Complainants filed complaint against SOTC and not against Kuoni (India) Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the complaint is bad in law and for misjoinder of necessary parities. As per the Opposite Parties the Complainants approached Opposite Party No.4 and booked tour No. FAR 435200406A i.e. Far East Tour which was to proceed to Singapore –Bangkok and Malaysia under the banner of “Bharman Mandal Trip” to be commencing on 29/04/06 for 8 days. The cost of the said tour was Rs.38,500/- per head. The Complainant No.1 on behalf of all the Complainants had signed the application and thereby admitted terms and conditions applicable to the said tour. It is contended that Opposite Parties are within their right to cancel the tour if sufficient passengers are not available in such circumstances option is given to the tour participant either to collect the entire refund or opt for any other tour conducted by the Opposite Parties. In the present case, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 took the decision to cancel aforesaid Bhraman Mandal Tour for want of availability of requisite passengers. Thereafter, the said fact was communicated to the Opposite Party No.4. It is submitted that in the mean time due to inadvertent or bonafide mistake the Opposite Party No.4 had sent tickets in respect of 5 days tour with wrong dates. On 24/04/06, the Complainant NO.1 alongwith Opposite Party No.4 approached Opposite Party No.4 Mrs. Bindra Sonawala and that time Mrs. Sonawala informed the Complainant that “Bhraman Mandal” tour is canceled and she will try to accommodate in another tour conducted by Opposite Party No.1 to 3 which were commencing on 3rd May, 2006. Said tour includes Thailand apart form Malaysia. Mrs. Sonawala informed the Complainant the cost of the said tour at Rs.55,653/- per person, totaling an amount of Rs.3,33,918/- and a special case offered discount of Rs.12,150/- to the Complainant. The Complainant accepted the said offer and paid balance amount of Rs.24,000/- by cheque dtd.24/04/06 in favour of Kuoni Travel. After receiving the said cheque once again fresh application was handed over to the Complainant No.1 who signed the said application on her behalf and other Complainants thereby accepting the said terms and conditions mentioned in the said tour application commencing on 3rd May, 2006. The said tour was arranged and conducted by Opposite Party No.1 to 3 as per itinerary. The hotels were provided as per the broacher/itinerary. Lunch and dinner was also provided as per the itinerary. All the sightseeing places were covered as per the programme. According to the Opposite Party, in the said tour all together there were in all 14 participants. Except the Complainants no other participants made any grievance against Opposite Parties. In the first week of August, 06, the Complainants addressed communication to the Opposite Parties and thereby alleged short coming in the said tour. The Opposite Parties vide their letter dtd.10/08/06 and 26/08/06 placed on record the correct facts and as a gesture of goodwill vide letter dtd.26/08/069 Opposite Party No.3 offered to pay Rs.7,500/- to each of the Complainant without accepting any liability. However, the Complainants declined the said offer and filed this complaint by making false allegations. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 defined under Sec.2(1)(g) and (r) of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
15) Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have denied allegations made in the complaint and given their explanation for so called alleged deficiencies stated in the complaint. According to the Opposite Parties complaint is liable to be dismissed and as such Complainants are not entitled to recover any amount or entitled for any other reliefs from the Opposite Parties. Therefore, complaint be dismissed with compensatory cost. Alongwith written statement the Opposite Parties have produced true copy of booking forms at Exh.‘1’ & ‘2’, copy of documentation check list, copy of terms and conditions etc.
16) The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument. Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have filed written argument.
17) Opposite Party No.4 was duly served with the notice of this complaint but has not appeared before this Forum and so on 24/06/2007 ex-parte order was passed against Opposite Party No.4. It is to be noted that the Complainants have not claimed any relief against Opposite Party No.4. We heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Ms. Rashmi Manne for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Smt. Sukruta Chimalkar h/f Mr. S.B. Prabhawalkar, for the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and closed the matter for orders.
18) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainants have proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite
Party No.1 to 3 ?
Findings : Yes.
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainants are entitled for reliefs from Opposite Parties as prayed for ?
Findings : As per final order.
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- It is undisputed facts that the Complainants No.1 to 6 are relative of each other. Somewhere in the month of March, 2006, SOTC had published an advertisement in various newspapers regarding their “Bhraman Mandal” Tour (FAR (E) Malaysia and Singapore. It is averred in the complaint that Opposite Party No.4 travel agent who was conducting booking for the said tour induced the Complainants to book for the said tour which was to leave on 29/04/06 for 8 days. Tour cost of Bhraman Mandal trip of SOTC was of Rs.38,500/- per head. According to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3, the Complainants approached Opposite Party No.4 and booked for tour under the banner ‘Bhraman Mandal” tour No.FAR435200406A which was commencing on 29/04/06 for 8 days. Further the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have admitted that cost of the said tour was Rs.38,500/- per head. According to the Complainant they paid Rs.1,54,000/- by cheque dtd.06/03/06 to Opposite Party No.4 applicable to the said tour. It appears that from the evidence on record that thereafter in the first week of April, 06 Opposite Party No.4 Mr. Parab of Zenith Travels received call from Opposite Party No.1 informing that tour cost was increasing by Rs.11,200/- per person. According to the Complainant after accepting booking amount, increase in tour cost unilaterally by the Opposite Party is unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties on behalf of Opposite Parties that as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Complainant, Opposite Parties are within their rights to increase cost of the tour. Increased cost of tour was admitted by the Complainant and accordingly the Complainant No.1 to 4 paid an amount of Rs.44,800/-by cheque dtd.20/04/06 towards differential cost of the tour. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties has not pointed out the terms and conditions which authorize Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to unilaterally increase cost of the tour after accepting of booking and declared cost of tour from tourists on or about 06/03/2006. Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have unilaterally increased charges of the said tour in the first week of April, 06 by Rs.11,200/- per person and the Complainants were asked to pay increased cost for which the Opposite Parties have not assigned any reason. Increase in the tour cost unilaterally after accepting booking amount without any justification amounts to unfair trade practice. It appears that thereafter Complainant No.5 Mrs. Mugdha Sairnaik paid Rs.48,500/- by cheque dtd.03/04/06 and Rs.1,200/- by cheque dtd.21/04/06, and Complainant No.6 Mrs. Chitra Datar also paid Rs.49.700/- by cheque dtd.10/04/06 to the Opposite Parties. Thus, the Complainants paid in all total Rs.2,98,200/-to the Opposite Parties and this fact is not disputed by the Opposite Parties.
It is not in dispute that on 23/04/06, Mr. Parab Opposite Party No.3 sent all the six tickets to the residence of Complainant No.1 and said tickets were of 5 days tour with wrong dates. According to the Opposite Parties, they took decision to cancel Bhraman Mandal tour for want of availability of requisite passengers. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 to 3 communicated to the Opposite Party No.4 the decision of the cancellation of tour. However, in the mean time due to the inadvertent or bonafied mistake Opposite Party No.4 had send tickets in respect of 5 days tour with wrong dates. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that as per the terms and conditions agreed by the Complainant Opposite Parties are within their rights to cancel their tour, if sufficient passengers are not available. The Opposite Parties has also produced certified copy of the booking form and documentation check list. In the printed terms and conditions there is no mention that in case of if sufficient passengers are not available Opposite Parties are entitled to cancel the tour. It is to be noted that the Complainant had booked Bhraman Mandal tour on or about 06/03/06 by making payment of Rs.1,54,000/-by Complainant No.1 to 4. Subsequently, Complainant No.1 to 4 deposited the tour cost of Rs.44,800/-. Complainants No.4 to 5have also deposited amount of Rs.49,700/- each. On or about 10/04/06, tickets were sent to the Complainants by Opposite Party No.4 on 23/04/06. It is not disclosed by the Opposite Party when they communicated their decision of cancellation of tour to Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.4 has not appeared before this Forum, so ex-party order is passed against Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have not adduced any evidence to prove that they had communicated decision of cancellation of tour to the Opposite Party No.4. It is important to note that even according to the Opposite Parties at the time of booking the Complainant No.1 had signed the application admitting terms and conditions. The amount paid by the Complainant was received by Opposite Party No.1 to 3. In such circumstances, it was expected on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to communicate their decision of cancellation to tour immediately to the Complainants. In this case, Opposite Parties have not produced any evidence to support their contention that on account of insufficient of number of passenger, they took decision of cancellation of tour and said decision was communicated to Opposite Party No.4 as alleged. From the facts of this case, it appears that taking unilateral decision of cancellation of Bhraman Mandal tour and without prior intimation to the Complainant and not communicating said decision of the Complainants for more than one month, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 3.
It is submitted on behalf of Complainant when Complainant No.1 received 6 tickets of the said tour and all the tickets were of 5 days tour and with wrong dates, the Complainant No.1 alongwith Complainant No.4 immediately rushed to the office of SOTC and contacted Mrs. Brinda Sonawala who informed about the cancellation of the tour and persuaded the Complainant’s tour to join some other package tour, schedule to leave on 11th May. The Complainants were in panic as their old parents had already come from Pune for 29th April tour and other Complainants had already got sanctioned leave from their respective office 15 days in advance. The Complainants demanded refund of money but it was told that on behalf of SOTC, it will take about a week for refund. In such circumstances the Complainant reluctantly agreed to accept other new tour package including final for 11 days and 10 Nights. It was told that tour cost would Rs.55,653/- per person totaling to Rs.3,33,918/-. Mrs. Sonawala offered discount of Rs.12,150/- in the total cost and since the Complainants have about paid Rs.2,97,771/-. Complainants gave her cheque for Rs.24,000/- dtd.24/04/06. It is submitted that the Complainants had given passports and other necessary documents well in advance to the Opposite Party. Said new package tour was to start from Mumbai on 3rd May, 2006 at 4.45 a.m. by Air India Flight but passports with visas and insurance policies were not given to the Complainants till 9 p.m. of 2nd May, which caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party, the as soon as visa was received from concerned consulate passports, visas and insurance policies were immediately sent to the Complainants and Complainants cannot blame Opposite Party for so called delay. It is true that issuing of visa is a sole discretion of the concerned Embassy/Consulate. There is evidence that the travel company submitted necessary documentation to the concerned Consulate at very late stage.
It is undisputed fact that alongwith passport, visa and other travel document Opposite Party gave 4 insurance policies to the Complainant. Opposite Party failed to obtain insurance policies for the Complainant No.2 Mr. Vasant Joshi and No.3 Mrs. Sugandha Joshi, who are Sr. citizens. According to the Opposite Parties, for obtaining insurance policies for Sr. citizen/passengers medical papers etc were required and it was not possible to arrange the said papers within short time. Therefore, they could not obtain insurance policy for Complainant No.2 & 3. On the contrary it submitted on behalf of Complainant that Opposite Party is a reputed travel company and carrying on travel business since last many years. Therefore, Opposite Party must be aware about the procedure and the required documents for obtaining insurance coverage for Sr. citizens. At the time of booking of the tour Opposite Party did not inform the Complainants about requirements of documents for obtaining insurance coverage of the Sr.citizens. Failure to give necessary information for obtaining insurance policy for senior citizens at the time of booking of tour is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
It is alleged by the Complainant that on 03/05/06 when the Complainant went to International Airport, Mumbai, that time there was nobody from the tour organization to assist Complainants immigration etc. It is rightly submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that the travel agent is not authorized to assist passengers in completing immigration formalities. It is grievance of the Complainant that in Air India aircraft the Complainants were not offered beverage as well as hard drinks and quality of food was not good. It is submitted by the Ld.Advocate Chimalkar on behalf of Opposite Party that Opposite Party have no control over the food and beverage served in the Air India Aircraft and Opposite Party cannot be blamed for so called deficiency in providing beverage and hard drink and good quality food by Air India. It is true that Opposite Parties cannot be blamed for so called deficiency in service on the part of Air India.
It is alleged by the Complainant that on arrival at Bangkok Airport, SOTC Representative Ms. Synthia was present but Complainants were made wait for an hour as to other group had to arrange for visa on arrival. Thereafter, Ms. Synthia took decision to send the Complainants to Hotel Royal Benja which is situated at very narrow lane. It appears that Mr. Cyrus Doctor, representative of SOTC made Complainants to wait in the lobby and briefed the tour programme and thereafter instead of providing accommodation 3 rooms of double occupancy he gave each case of 2 rooms. He did not pay heed to the request of the Complainants and later on at 5.00 p.m. Mr. Cyrus Doctor apologized and handed over key of 3 rooms to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties had admitted aforesaid fact.
Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has pointed out brochure published by the Opposite Party regarding tour in question, submitting that following representation was made by the Opposite Party that –
“Enjoy delicious buffet
Indian Meals
Prepared by SOTC very own India Chef
and served to you inside your Hotel.”
It is submitted that inspite of very specific aforesaid representation made by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party never provided India meals prepared by SOTC’s own Indian Chef to the Complainants and other participants of tour at any place. It appears from the evidence on record as promised by the Opposite Party, Opposite Party failed to provide Indian meals prepared by their own Chef to the Complainants. Further it appears that on some occasions the Complainants made to stay in one hotel and arrangement for dinner was made in another hotel which was situated longer distance and no arrangement of transport was made for the Complainants. Not complying with the specific aforesaid assurance of providing Indian meals prepared by their own Chef amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
The Complainants have repeatedly made grievance about American style breakfast. Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party has brought to the notice the brochure of the said tour and pointed that it is specifically mentioned brochure that buffet American breakfast would be provided every day. The Complainants have accepted terms and conditions, therefore, they are not entitled to make grievance regarding American breakfast provided to them. It is submitting on behalf of Opposite Party that as per tour programme mentioned in the brochure all the Complainants were stayed at the hotels mentioned in the brochure. All hotels are of good standard and the Complainants are making grievance without justification. It appears that the accommodations in hotels mentioned in the brochure were provided to the Complainants and all the places of sightseeing were shown to the Complainants. It is grievance of the Complainants that on 4th May, they were stationed in the same hotel without any sightseeing. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has pointed out itinerary and submitted that day 2 in Bangkok was kept free for shopping. Therefore, we do not find substance in the aforesaid allegations made by the Complainant. It is grievance of the Complainants that they were asked to pay Airport taxes, entry fee at sightseeing places etc. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has pointed the terms and conditions printed in the brochure. In the brochure it is specifically mentioned in the highlighted portion what your tour price does not include (i) passport, POE Service Charges, (ii) Airport Taxes, Taxes to Thai BATH 500 payable in local currency etc. Therefore, we do not find substance in the aforesaid allegations made by the Complainants.
In the instant case Opposite Parties have collected Rs.1,200/- as increase in tour cost after booking of tour made by the Complainants No.1-4. Without prior intimation and without assigning any reason for the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3. Further cancellation of tour programme after accepting total cost of the tour Rs.2,98,200/- from the Complainants, without any prior intimation to the Complainants and giving intimation of cancellation of tour after long period itself amounts to deficiency in service. Further not giving proper guidance to the Complainant in respect of obtaining insurance policy for Sr. citizens is also deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. In spite of specific representation made in the brochure that Indian meal prepared by their own cook will be provided the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have failed to comply their representation itself amount to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant had proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3. In the result we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2 :- The Complainant have requested to direct Opposite Parties to refund entire amount of Rs.3,21,771/- deposited by them with Opposite Party for the said tour plus amount spent by them for beverage Rs.50,000/- for cost of hard liquor which they had destroyed before reaching Singapore and alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from 24/04/06 till realization. The Complainants have also claimed Rs.2 Lacs as a compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses from the Opposite Party No.1 to 3. It is not in dispute that the Complainants have completed tour programme as described in the brochure. Therefore, Complainants are not entitled for refund of entire tour cost of Rs.3,21,771/- deposited by them. The Complainants have not given proof of the extra amount spent by them for food beverage etc. It is the case of the Complainants that in the Bangkok they purchased hard liquor of 12 bottles for total cost of Rs.15,000/-. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of liquor bottles Mr. Pethe of Opposite Party did not told the Complainant about the Singapore immigration rules. When Mr. Calvin informed them about strictness of Singapore immigration, just before they reached near Singapore the Complainants were constrained to destroy 12 bottles of hard liquor and thereby they suffered lost of Rs.15,000/-. It is not case of the Complainant that representative of the SOTC suggested them to purchase hard liquor bottles at Bangkok. There is nothing on record to show that the Complainant purchased hard liquor bottles with pre-intimation to Mr. Pethe, Representative of SOTC. Therefore, we hold that the Complainants are not entitled to recover cost of the 12 bottles of hard liquor form the Opposite Party. As mentioned above due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties the Complainants have suffered inconvenience, mental agony and harassment. The Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.11/08/06 offered to refund sum of Rs.5,000/- per person and by their subsequently letter dtd.27/08/06 offered to refund sum of Rs.7,500/- per person. But the Complainants were not satisfied with the aforesaid offer therefore, they have filed this complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it just to direct Opposite Party No.1-3 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to each Complainant No.1-6 i.e. total Rs.1,20,000/- to the Complainants No.1 to 6. Further we think it just to direct Opposite Party No.1-3 to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of this proceeding to the Complainant. Hence, we answer point no.2 accordingly and pass the following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.440/2006 is partly allowed.
ii.Opposite Party No.1 to 3 shall jointly and/or severally pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs. One Lac Twenty
Thousand Only) to the Complainant No.1 to 6 i.e. Rs.20,000/- to each Complainant within period of 1 month
from the date of this order. In case failure to comply aforesaid order, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 shall be
liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.1,20,000/- till payment of entire amount to the Complainant.
iii.Opposite Party No.1 to 3 shall jointly and/or severally pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand Only) as cost of this proceeding.
iv.Complaint against Opposite Party No. 4 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
vi. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
