Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/255/2019

Col Surender Singh Pathania - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOTC Travel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Sharma Adv.

13 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/255/2019
Date of Institution	:	18/04/2019
Date of Decision	:	13/12/2021

 

Col. Surender Singh Pathania, aged 71 years, s/o
Sh. Munshi Ram Pathania r/o #5201, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. SOTC Travel Limited, Ground Floor, DA-32, Near City Centre, Sector – 1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700064, India through its MD.
2. Mr. Tithi Dhar, Senior Executive Sales at SOTC Travel Limited, Ground Floor, DA-32, Near City Centre, Sector – 1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700064, India.
3. SOTC Travel Limited, 8^th Floor, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 through its MD
4. Ms. Aarti Sawant, Senior Sales Executive, 8^th Floor, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nitin Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel for OPs

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      The facts in brief are that, the complainant with his group of 28 personnel, comprising of Indian Army Veterans alongwith their wives, planned to visit Mauritius from 2^nd to 8^th September, 2018 to commemorate and celebrate 48^th Commissioning Day of Veterans falling on 6^th September, 2018 for which services of OPs were availed.  The veterans were in two groups – one from Delhi and other from Mumbai – and the complainant flew with Delhi group.  The package offered by the OPs included air fare from Delhi to Sir S. Ramgoolam International Airport, Mauritius, hotel accommodation, transportation, pick up and drop from the airport to hotel and sight-seeing.  Per complainant, he is a battle casualty with 100% disability due to bullet injury to spine and is paralysed below waist level and his movements are based on wheel chair and requires special treatment/care and handling. OPs had accordingly included the requirement of complainant in the package and confirmed that they will be provided wheel chair friendly accommodation and transport. However, right from the beginning, OPs failed to provide the desired services in as much as the bus was high floor and was not wheel chair friendly, room at the hotel had number of steps, door of the washroom was very narrow etc. On 3.9.2018 complainant sent email to Mrs. Tithi Dhar of the OPs and intimated her about the difficulties and harassment faced by him. She was also told that the imported wheel chair of the complainant also got damaged in the process of entering and coming out of washroom.  When no reply was received from the OPs, complainant shifted to another hotel at his own expenses.  Even the transport was also not provided to the complainant to enable him to accompany other group members for sight-seeing and he was forced to have local taxi at his own expenses.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and admitted that a tour package for Mauritius for a total of 29 adults was booked which was to depart on 2.9.2018 and that the complainant and his wife boarded the flight from Delhi.  Averred, prior to 28.8.2018, complainant had never informed the OPs about his 100% disability and that he was paralyzed below waist level and thus required special treatment/care and handling.  Maintained OPs had arranged for a private transport for complainant’s group from airport to hotel which was suitable and wheelchair friendly. However, the complainant himself demanded a separate vehicle/cab for himself and his wife which was never agreed upon.  Still on the insistence of the complainant, the local tour manager went out of way to arrange a vehicle as demanded by the complainant without any extra charge.  Stated that the OPs are under no obligation to reimburse the complainant for his stay at hotel Le Meridien as they had already made payment for his stay at Hotel Villa Mon Plaisir.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Complainant filed rejoinder controverting the stand of OPs and reiterating his own.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments.
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, the facts with regard to booking and availing the tour package of Mauritius from 2^nd to 8^th September, 2018 by the complainant and his wife, alongwith a group of Indian Army veterans, are not in dispute.  
7.     It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that despite intimating the OPs in advance regarding his physical condition, he was made to suffer harassment at the hands of the OPs in as much as high floor bus was provided for transportation with narrow three climbing steps in which the complainant was not able to enter; the room in hotel Villa Mon Plaisir had number of steps and the complainant’s wheel chair was not accessible to those steps; door of the washroom attached to the hotel room was very narrow and grip handles of the wheelchair were removed in order to seek entry inside the washroom; shower enclosure was on a raised platform and wheelchair was unable to enter there and he had to remain without bath for three days due to which the complainant had to take separate room in another hotel and also hire local taxi at his own expenses. 
8.     On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs argued that complainant informed about his full disability and requiring special care and handling for the first time vide email dated 28.8.2018.
9.     A perusal of the email dated 28/30.8.2018 (Annexure C-3/R-3) shows that the complainant, while referring to his earlier telephonic conversation, had informed Ms. Tithi Dhar of the OPs about his requirement and his physical condition as under :-

“1.  I require a wheel chair at the airport to take me inside the aircraft up to the seat allotted to me which you have rightly arranged.

2.   After getting down from the aircraft at the destination and after collection of my luggage I will use my own wheel chair.

3.   Now thereafter my requirement is that I should be able to enter the transport which you have arranged for our conveyance from the airport and subsequently on all days while sitting in the wheel chair, because my both legs are paralyzed and I cannot walk or stand.

4.   The width of the wash room door and the hotel room door should be minimum 36 inches wide so that I should be able to enter the wash room while seated in the wheel chair.  You can come back to me in case any clarification is required.”

 

10.     We are of the view that if the OPs had any reservations about requirements of complainant, being not in consonance with prior agreement, they could have immediately reverted to his email dated 28.8.2018 or shown their inability to meet the same and in such eventuality the onus would have been on the complainant to embark on the journey or not. However, the OPs failed to do so.  Rather, Ms. Tithi Dhar of the OPs vide email dated 31.8.2018 only sent some form to be filled by the complainant. This amounts to nothing but admission on the part of OPs to the requirements of the complainant as laid down in his email.
11.     Further complainant vide his email dated 3.9.2018 (Annexure C-5) brought to the notice of said Ms. Tithi Dhar of the OPs the ordeal faced by him and requested to sort out the problems, but, all the efforts made by the complainant failed to evoke any positive response from the OPs and he had to arrange for alternate hotel and taxi at his own expenses in a foreign land.
12.     Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the OPs argued that the OPs are merely holiday organizer and do not have any control over any of the independent service providers like airline, hotel etc. and, therefore, the OPs cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on their part. However, this plea of the OPs is also bereft of any merit. The contract with regard to availing the tour package of Mauritius was entered into with the OPs and it is the OPs only who had made all the hotel and travel arrangements.  Hence, in case of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, it is the OPs only who have to face the consequences. 
13.     The complainant - an ex-Army man - is a battle casualty with 100% disability due to bullet injury in spine suffered in a high profile military operation, paralysed below the waist level and is also recipient of Sena Medal. Despite being in such condition, complainant must be applauded for his zeal and conviction in going ahead with the group of Indian Army veterans to commemorate and celebrate the 48^th Commissioning day. However, due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant had to face a lot of inconvenience and harassment in an alien land and he deserves to be suitably compensated for the same.
14.     In view of above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To pay a global compensation of ₹50,000/- to the complainant for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant;
2. To pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/12/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President