In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 392/2012
1) Debasis Dutta,
YMCA Hostel, Room No-32,
113 Vivekananda Road, Kolkata-6. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) SOTC
A division of Kouni Travel (I) Pvt. Ltd.
10 No Wood Street, 2nd Floor,
Kolkata-16, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 8 Dated 10-07-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. by letter dt.1.8.11, furnished some information relating to their proposed tour to South-East Asia sometime during 3.10.11 to 8.10.11. A brochure was also sent along with the said letter. The expenses required for the tour, as per the letter were as follows:
Per adult in twin sharing pays after all deductions : USD 469 + INR 33,499
Child without bed pays after all deduct ions : USD 269 + INR 33,249
A copy of the said letter dt.1.8.11 is annexed the petition of complaint and marked Annexure-‘A’.
From the brochure and subsequent conversations an impression was given that the tour to Malaysia and Singapore was a tour for six days and five nights.
A total amount of INR 1,00,247 and USD 1207 was paid to the aforesaid ‘Kuoni Travels India Pvt. Ltd.’ vide ICICI Bank cheques no.005907 dt.12.8.11 for Rs.33,000/- and no.005912 dt.31.8.11 for Rs.67,247/- and USD 1207 for two adults and one child.
Soon after the payment the o.p. was requested on several occasions, to furnish the details of the tour programme and of the flights. Fake assurances were given to furnish the same as early as possible and ultimately a ‘Briefing Sheet’ was furnished 4 to 5 days before the journey was scheduled to commence. Such an unfair means was adopted by the o.p. only with an ill intention to debar the tourists from canceling their bookings.
As per ‘Briefing Sheet’, in Singapore, the complainant and others were to be accommodated in ‘Breeze Hotel’ but they were told to stay at a hotel named ‘Cherry Loft’. The hotel was under construction. There was no telephone facility in the room, a television was kept on the table without any connection and some of the rooms did not even have the doors to close. A single lift was operating in the hotel upto 5th floor but some tourists had to put up at 6th floor.
Being enraged by the negligence and deficiency in services of the o.p., the complainant along with other tourists, forced the Cherry Loft authorities to give, in writing, the shortcomings of the hotel for which the tourists had to suffer.
After much debate, a letter of apology dt.7.10.11 was handed over to the complainant at the last moment when the tourists were leaving for SingaporeAirport. Surprisingly, the letter was issued by the ‘Breeze Group Pte Ltd. instead of ‘Cherry Loft’ hotel.
It was confessed in the said letter that the building was a new one and that the hotel started its operation from 1.10.11 i.e. only a few days ago, and apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and to others.
Complainant states that the quality of food supplied to them was horrible and practically it was not worth consuming. Just one instance would be sufficient to perceive the situation. On 7.10.11 the complainant was provided with 10 (ten) Singapore Dollar Lunch coupon in Genting Universal Studio Campus, where one bottle of safe drinking water costs $ 5.5 i.e. one tourist was provided with less than two bottles of water for his lunch. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Sole o.p. did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.p.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents in particular. Sole did not contest the case and the evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged testimony and has not been rebutted by o.p.
In view of the findings above, we find that o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) only towards loss suffered by the complainant and is further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
