BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1149/2016

Complaint filed on 25.01.2016

Date of Judgement.25.01.2017

PRESENT                                : 1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                        2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                            MEMBER

Complainant/s               :                  1. Capt. M.A. Hussain

S/o Late Dr. Syed Mohammed

 # No. 10/A,

 Rajendranagar Main Road,

Opp: KEB Choultry

 (Sri N. Shashi Kumar., Advocate)

                                                               V/s

Opponent        /s                     :       The Proprietor

                                                        Seagull Travel (Mysuru)

                                                          No. 8, Ramanashree Hotel   

Complex, Bangalore

Ooty Road, Mysuru.

                                             (Sri J.M. Aiyanna , Advocate)

    SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S., PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986. against the opposite party pray for the  relief of compensation  and  other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of complainant is that the complainant was intent to travel to Dubai to see the Dubai and such other tourist place in Dubai, for that he contracted the above said travels and enquired about the details and charges for the above said place by the complainant.

3. At the time of enquiry, the opposite party have told that, the cost of travel i.e., to and fro flight charges and staying in the Luxury Hotel for period of 5 days tour and sightseeing everything included for Rs. 74,000/ and the complainant agreed and paid Rs. 74,000/-to opposite party and the date fixed for travel was on 05.10.2015 to 09.10.2015.

4. It is submitted that the complainant is a retired captain in Indian army and wanted to enjoy his retired days and also known for Dubai is the best Tourist place in the world. He was expecting, when he reach that place, the travel agency will make him happy, entertaining and make him to show the good places in Dubai. But, his expectation was splashed by cold water and everything was went in vain.

5. It is further submitted that starting 2 days were showed places i.e., from 05.10.2015 to 06.10.2015 were good, and rest of the 2days i.e., from 07.10.2015 to 08.10.2015 the Travel agency was made the  complainant to sit idle and nothing had been showed and kept quite. Though the complainant asked the Travel agent, he was not responded and told the complainant to go and see the place by his own expenses.

6. It is submitted that, at that time, the complainant could not able to contact to the Travel agency, through telephone and he only caught buses and had seen the ‘Burj Khalifa’ tallest building in the  world and spent Rs. 1200/-

7. This is the attitude of the opposite party Travel agency and also the opposite party charged exorbitant amount for travel to Dubai and also caused mental agony and made the complainant depressed. Hence the opposite party committed deficiency of service. The opposite party is liable to pay compensation to complainant and also the complainant has given a complainant against the opposite party with concerned jurisdictional police. The compensation claimed are as follows:

Compensation claimed                                         :         Rs. 50,000/-

Mental agony                                                        :         Rs. 25,000/-

Exorbitant charged by opposite party                   :         Rs. 25,000/-

                                                                                      Rs. 1,00,000/-

8. It is submitted that the complainant is aged 71 years, wanted to visit Dubai (alone) , he contacted the above travel agency for that he paid a hooping charges of Rs. 74,000/- he handed over, Air ticket , visa and programme in itinerary on Oct. 4^th 2015 at 5.00 PM The fly bus to Bangalore air port was on 05^th Oct. 2015 at 1.00 am. i.e,. early morning. Since he was going for 4 days visit, he chalked out at the Dubai Hotel due  lack of time at Mysuru. He was shocked to see that, on 5^th Oct. 2015 from 3 PM to 9 PM cruise programme was given with dinner. On 6^th cot 2015 a flying visit of the city, junerah, beach ship Hotel, Museum, a trip on metro train (payable by self) was catered only.

9. It is submitted that the Burj Khalifa tower was not catered in his tour programme, tallest building of the world, which the complainant visited by spending from his pocket Rs. 4200. He was shocked to see that there was no programme on 7^th and 8^th October 2015 and no schedule of tour programme was given. His tour programme is attached for ready reference. The complainant contracted his daughter at Mysuru. That he was fooled by this agent (Seagull).

10. It is submitted that next day the Dubai agent of Seagull contacted the complainant and suggested to visit Abudabi, but on payment of Rs. 4500 without lunch and he said you will be left Grand mosque for 3 hours and shall pick you back on return. The complainant refused to go with him along with his tourist. The complainant visited Grand Mosque by local bus and spending 60 Dirram (Rs. 1200)

11. It is submitted that on 9^th October 2015, the complainant received an instruction form the Dubai agent to be ready by 7.30 am for departure to air port as the flight is ready by 9.00 am back to Bangalore. After returning to Mysuru, the complainant visited twice to Seagull Travel agency for his deficiency on service and unfair trade practice. His reply was unsatisfactory.

12. It is submitted that the complainant took 2^nd opinion from A.Y. Associated situated at udayagiri. To his utter surprise a very crystal clear tour programme with breakfast. Lunch and dinner, list of visiting places entirely costing Rs. 45,000/- This firm is hood winked the complainant , that too a senior citizen going alone to Dubai, deserving for maximum penalty and relentless action, so that he should not deceive again to other innocent citizen.

13. It is submitted that the notice was sent to opposite party on 20.11.2015 and it has been served to him on 23.11.2015. There is a no reply from the opposite party

14. The notice to the opposite party duly served and represented by the counsel and filed version and affidavit, written arguments in the complainant. In the version the opposite party submits that the averments made in para 2 of the complaint to the effect that the complainant desired to travel to Dubai and such other places in Dubai so as to have a vacation is admitted. also true to state that in this regard the complainant had approached this opposite party who is a recognised agent for Domestic and international air lines apart from being authorised agent for Eco tours.

15. The opposite party submits that, averments made in para 3 of the complaint to the effect that this opposite party informed the complainant that the proposed tour of the complainant along with the travel accommodation and certain other facilities were informed and the cost for the total tour package was informed to be Rs. 75,000/- the complainant agreed for the same and the tour of the complainant was slated to be from 5^th to 9^th October 2015.

16. The opposite party submits that, the averments made in para 4 of the complaint to the effect that all the desires of the complainant to enjoy his retired life by travelling to Dubai was ruined by this opposite part is absolutely false. It is essential to note that the entire schedule of the tour along with the details of accommodation places of visit and the facilities which would be provided for the tour package were informed in advance to the complainant by providing the relevant tour schedule in the form of a document. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon’ble authority.

17. The opposite party submits that the averments made in para 5 of the complaint to the effect that the tour organised by this opposite party was excellent , but for the remaining two days the opposite party had not facilitated for any visits to the complainant for places of interest. It is false to state that the complainant was required to visit such places at his own costs.

18. The opposite party submits that the averments made in para 6 of the complainant to the effect that the complainant was unable to contact the travel agent over phone is a statement which is contrary to the pleading in para 5 the claim of the complainant that he visited the tallest building by spending Rs. 1200/- is not within the knowledge of this opposite party.

19. The opposite party submits that the averments made in para 7 of the complainant to the effect that this opposite party had charged exorbitantly for the package of the complainant in travelling to Dubai is false. It is false to state that the opposite party had committed deficiency of service it is false to state that this opposite party is liable to pay compensation as claimed in the complainant.

20. The opposite party submits that, the averments  made in para 8 of the complaint regarding the entire arrangement made by the opposite party with respect to the tour package of the complainant are all admitted. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the complainant states that the itinerary of the programme of the complainant was provided reveals that the complainant was aware of all the facilities which would be provided to the complainant. In fact the 7^th and 8^th of October was mentioned as leisure day which the complainant could chose to indulge activities of interest at Dubai. Hence, the question of providing any service to the complainant for 7^th and 8^th October would not arise at all. This was also within the knowledge of the complainant prior to the tour programme. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint are all absolutely incorrect.

21. The opposite party submits that the averments made in para 9 of the complainant to the effect the complainant has spent Rs. 4,200/- to visit “Burj Khalifa tower “ is a false statement which is contrary to what is pleaded in para 6 of the complaint. It is essential to note that the tour programme of the complainant was provided in advance and therefore there was no occasion to fool the complainant as referred to.

22. The opposite party submits that the averments made in para 10 of complainant to the effect that the agent of this opposite party suggested the complainant to visit Abu Dhabi on payment is an independent transaction indulged into by the complainant which is unconcerned to this opposite party. It is true to state that the complainant returned on 09.10.2015 as per schedule. The contention of the complainant that some other travel agent at Udayagiri, Mysore offered a clear tour programme at a cost of Rs. 45,000/- is not within the knowledge of this opposite party. It is relevant to note that different tour operators provide different packages with different facilities. However, the package, facility and the places where in the complainant would be taken were all informed in advance. The complainant has chosen the tour package with full knowledge and therefore, comparing the package with some other travel agencies package is not within the knowledge of this opposite party. The contention that the complainant has hoodwinked the opposite party is a mere illusion of the complainant. This opposite party has not indulged in any act of deception. The complainant has preferred the present complaint with the only intention of making false and baseless allegations against this opposite party to lower the reputation of the opposite party in the business circles and in the process recover the money spent for the tour. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Wherefore prays for   the dismissal of complaint.

23. To prove the facts, the complainant and opposite party lead their evidence by filing affidavit along with documents. On perusal of the documents placed on board, and on hearing oral arguments, perused written arguments, matter posted for orders.

24. The points that arise for our consideration are;-

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party during Dubai tour programme and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?

2. What order?

25. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

1. Point No.1: In the Negative.

2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

26 . Point No.1:-  The complainant  was intent to  travel to Dubai to see the same and also to visit tourist place in Dubai for that he approached the opposite party and enquired about details and charges to visit the said place by the complainant at the time of enquire the opposite party tolled the cost of travel to and fro flight charges and staying luxury hotel for a period of 5 days and to see sightseeing everything is included package of Rs. 74,000/- for which the complainant agreed and opposite party fixed travel date  was on 05.10.2015 to 09.10.2015.

27. Further the complainant submits that from 05.10.2015 to 09.10.2015 the tour was and from 07.10.2015 to 08.10.2015 is a leisure day as per the tour plan which was agreed by both parties. For which the complainant raised objection and further to visit some other places. He was made to pay from his pocket as well as to visit “burjkhallifa” he spent Rs 1200( 65 dirram). Here complainant become annoyed as he was forced to spend some extra money to visit tourist place in Dubai. It is the contention of complainant that in spite of paying Rs. 74,000/- for package tour to visit Dubai the opposite party neither rendered proper service nor showed all the tourist places in Dubai. Due to the improper  tour plan and service the complainant was made to spend money from his pocket apart from paying Rs, 74,000/- to opposite party. This act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant prays compensation and other reliefs.

28. In support of his contention the complainant has examined himself through chief affidavit and placed some document in support of his contention. The opposite party has taken the contentions that entire tour plan of Dubai and other detail and issuing flight ticket was intimated and send to complainant on 18.09.2015 and also “ITINERARY” of programme is given to complainant before 15 days, and programme list also given to complainant on 18.09.2015 in the list it is very clearly mentioned that on 07 and 8 October is leisure day as per the programme chart. Which is supplied by the opposite party along with E-ticket well before 15 days to the complainant. For which he never raised objection till he returned from Dubai.

29. Further it is a contract entered between complainant and opposite party. The offer of opposite party for the package of Rs. 74,000/- to visit Dubai for 5 days, when  such offer is accepted , agreed and paid by complainant,  he is bound  to  accept all the terms and conditions of opposite party. When such being the case when once, the complainant has agreed for all terms and conditions, again he cannot go back and say that he is not aware of all the terms and conditions, and also he cannot contends those things or not within his knowledge.

30. Here once the opposite party has supplied programme chart well before 15 days much prior to tour programme wherein the list clearly mentioned those two days is reserved for leisure as per the programme chart which was prepared and sent to the complainant on 18.09.2015 along with  ‘E’ ticket. And complainant left India on 05.10.2015 to visit Dubai and returned to India 09.10.2015. Here the very important point is that from 18.09.2015 till 09.10.2015 the complainant never raised any objection till the completion of tour nobody has prevented the complainant neither to raise objection nor asked for explanation for the programme chart which is prepared and supplied to complainant. In spite of sufficient time the complainant never chooses to raise objection for the programme chart in particular for the leisure of two days. This act and attitude of complainant shows that knowingly fully well, agreed for all terms and conditions of tour, which was arranged by the opposite party.

31. It is also very important to note that when on 18.09.2015 when opposite party issued E-Ticket along with Dubai programme chart complainant on seeing the chart why he kept quiet, why there is no protest why he did not take any action against opposite party upon seeing programme chart. Here the silence of opposite party amounts to acceptance of all terms and conditions of opposite party after completion to tour he cannot object for tour plan. Finally when once he accepted all terms further he cannot go back and contends that it is not within his knowledge. Here complainant did not take any action like neither for cancelation of tour nor asked for the refund of amount against opposite party, before departure to Dubai. This act of complaint clearly made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and he is not liable to pay compensation to the complaint.

32. Further the opposite party has clearly established that he acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement it is evident that at no point of time.He has not violated the terms and conditions, on the other hand complainant has violated the terms and conditions which was agreed by him. Here the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

33. For the above reasons by looking at the facts and documents produced by complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and also complainant has failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

34. According to this forum we answered Point no.1 in the negative and pass the following:

35. Point no.2:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 25^th   January 2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                           President.                                             

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED  ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of complainant:

CW-1           :   M.A. HUSSAIN

List of Documents on Produced behalf of complainant:

1        :         Amount paid receipt

2        :         Air ticket

3        :         E-Visa of the country   

4        :         Legal notice to OP

5        :         Acknowledgment receipt and card

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF OP.

Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP :

RW-1 :         Sameer  Ahmad Khan

List of Documents Produced on behalf of OP :

1. :         Total package tour list to Dubai 5^th to 9 Oct. 2015
2. :         E-Ticket dated 18 the September 2015

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                            President.