ORDER
No.14.
Darte-18/06/2018.
Sri Rabideb Mukhopadhyay
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant states that the OP is a registered company, carrying on business of Tour and Travel under the name and style SOTC Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 28B, Bakultala Lane, P.S. Kasba, Kolkata 700042.
That the OP advertised in the daily newspaper Telegraph dated 1st March, 2017 that the Op has arranged a tour programme to explore the Newzealand.
That the complainants are a permanent resident of the above stated address and Complainant No.1, a chartered structural engineer, came to know from the said advertisement that OP has arranged a tour programme to explore the Newzealand, then complainants met with the OP on 31/03/2017 at his aforesaid Office and had several discussions, OP informed complainants that on 27/09/2017 the tour will be started from Kolkata to Singapore then New Zealand.
That on several discussions OP informed the complainants that the date of journey on 27/09/2017 and the journey time will be more or less 12 Hours. On good faith the complainants accepted the tour programme and as per requirement of the OP the complainants paid a sum of Rs.80, 000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) only (Rs.40, 000/- X 2) on 31/03/2017 as booking money for two persons and also agreed to pay balance amount as per OP requirements. Before such payment the complainants repeatedly requested OP to give the route chart and also travel Schedule but OP told the complainants that computer net connection is out of order they will send the aforesaid route chart as early as possible.
That on good faith the complainants paid the said amount and left the office of the OP after such payment. Subsequently the OP send the route chart by messenger on 30/07/2017 and after receiving the route chart complainants were astonished and the complainants came to know that OP has changed their Route i.e. Kolkata to Mumbai then to Brisbane then to Christ Church in Newzealand more than 22 Hours journey period. The complainants Sri Satchidananda Sur is 77 years old and his wife Smt. Sunanda Sur is 78 years old as such it is very difficult for the complainants to travel the aforesaid 22 Hours long journey. At the time of booking if the OP informed or give the present Route Chart the complainants never would accept the said tour programme.
That getting the aforesaid information the complainants met and informed the OP they are not agreed to Tour in his long Journey and they have decided to cancel their tour programme and the complainants informed the OP by a letter dated 07/07/2017 to refund their advance Rs.80, 000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) only but the OP did not pay any heed to pay the said amount.
That thereafter the complainants repeatedly requested the OP to pay the said amount but they did not bother to pay the said amount and being fade up to realize the said amount the complainants by issuing Regd with A/D letter dated 25/08/2017 through their Advocate, Supriya Mukherjee, Alipore Judges Court, Kolkata – 27 to pay the said amount of Rs.80, 000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand )only in favour of the complainants, but the OP failed and neglected to pay the said amount to the complainants.
That the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint prima facie proves that there was a serious deficiency on the part of the OP in rendering proper service to the complainants and the officials of the OP acted negligently and carelessly in dealing with the case of the complainants.
That the cause of action has arisen to the complainants to file the present complaint, when the complainants informed the OP by a letter dated 07/07/2017 and also Advocate’s letter dated 25/08/2017, within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. The cause of action is still subsisting as the OP has refused to refund the said amount taken from the complainants at a time.
The OP may kindly be directed to refund the sum of Rs.80, 000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 2017. A compensation to the tune of Rs.50, 000/- only on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by the complainants due to the litigation expenses Rs.30, 000/-.
Points for Decision
- Whether the complainants are a consumer under the OP,
- Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants,
- Whether the complainants deserve relief.
Decision with Reasons
- We have perused the Receipt Nos.R170011268 dated 12/04/2017 for Rs.66000/- and R170011448 dated 12/04/2017 for Rs.14000/-, copy of detailed Air Tickets (2 Pages), copy of letter dated 07/07/2017 to SOTC Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. by complainant no.1 and letter dated 25/08/2017 to the OP by complainants’ Advocate sent through EMS Speed Post filed by the complainants and copy of Terms & Conditions filed by OP.
- The complainants’ contention is that they were intimated of 12 hours’ journey from Kolkata – Singapore-New Zealand before making advance of Rs.80, 000/- for the New Zealand tour of complainants.
The OP’s dealing representatives were requested to hand over the route chart and travel details before making advance but OP did not hand over on the plea of computer internet being out of order.
- Subsequently, after advance payment of Rs.80, 000/- was made by the complainants, route chart was sent by OP through special messenger, stipulating the time of 22 hours difficult for senior citizens instead of 12 hours, being from Kolkata to Mumbai to Brisbane to Christ Church (New Zealand).
- It needs to be mentioned that seeing such route chart which was very difficult for the senior citizen complainants of 78 years to traverse the journey of troublesome 22 hours, the complainants offered to cancel the trip and claimed for refund of deposited money.
- It is worth mention that the new route chart was very difficult to be accepted by the very senior citizen complainants of 78 years who had to sit for 22 hours at a stretch as against assured 12 hours.
The learned Advocate for OP submitted during final hearing that there is no proof that OP assured the complainants for 12 hours of journey.
- In response to such plea of OP, it may be pointed out to the question as to why the route chart and the travel itinerary were not provided to the complainants, when asked for during advance payment.
The OP’s representatives posed a lame excuse that computer network was out of order; said document should have been made ready in printed form and handed over to prospectivetravellers.
- That it was not done by OP means OP was deficient in rendering proper service and OP adopted unfair means to confuse and allure the complainants to book the trip and make advance.
Such conduct of OP is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.
- The complainant no.1 and learned Advocate for the complainants wrote letters, as already stated, to the OP showing grievance for change of schedule and, therefore, demanding refund of the deposited money.
Ld. Advocate for the OP posed question that there is no proof that such an objection was sent to OP.But such version of OP appears to be futile as the complainants filed documents of sending the letter dated 25/08/2017 through EMS Speed Post. OP seven did not send ay reply.
- Ld. Advocate for OP was also demanding that as per Terms & Conditions of the Tour, the advance money was not refundable and the complainant no.1 signed the Terms & Conditions.
In response to such plea, it may be pointed out that the complainants demanded that some documents were got signed by the complainants at the instance of OP and the complainants followed OP’s instructions on good faith.
Moreover, can the OP satisfactorily reply why the Terms & conditions are printed in fine prints? This is because the tourists find it difficult to peruse the contents of such Terms & Conditions and are compelled to sign on it.
This is just a dent of unfair trade practice adopted by the OP.
- The complainants paid consideration money of Rs.80, 000/- in anticip0ation of getting some service. So, the complainants are consumers under the OP in terms of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of C.P. Act, 1986.
The OP failed to render promised service to the complainants as discussed.So, OP is deficient in terms of section 2 (1) (g) read with section 2(1) (o) of the Act.
The Senior Citizen complainants suffered physical harassment and mental agony and so, deserve relief.
In the circumstances of above discussions, we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP in terms of section 13 (2) (b) (i) of the C.P Act, 1986;
That the OP with representing members Pratip Mukherjee and Hyder Ali is directed to refund Rs.80, 000/- with 8 percent interest from 12/04/2017 till date of actual payment, Rs.10, 000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost, to the complainants, within 30 days from the date of this order;
That the OP with its representing members Pratip Mukherjee and Hyder Ali is directed to pay Rs.20000/- in terms of section 14 (1) (hb) of the Act, for adopting unfair trade practices, to be deposited with this Forum, within 30 days from the date of this order;
The on non-compliance of above orders by the OP within the stipulated time, the complainant shall have the liberty to put the orders into execution in terms of Section 27 of the Act ibid.
Let copies of the order be handed over to the parties when applied for.
