Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/179/2012

S.Ganapathy Sankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Anna Poorni Yatra Service, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Rajendran

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  08.08. 2012

                                                                        Date of Order :  13.06.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.179/2012

MONDAY THIS 13^TH  DAY OF JUNE  2016

 

S. Ganapathy Sankar,

S/o. D.S.Subramaniam,

Old No.9, New No.8,

N.G.O. Colony,

3^rd Street,

Pazhavanthangal Post,

Nanganallur,

Chennai 600 114.                                             ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

Sri Annapoorni Yatra Service,

Rep. by its Manager / Secretary,

(Specialist in Holy Mt.Kailash,

Manasarovar & Mukthinath Yatra),

No.63, Nadu Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.                                             ..Opposite party  

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. S.Rajendran & others  

For the opposite party               :   M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi.  

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards the cost for the entire trip and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.17,300/- towards Air ticket charges incurred by the complainant.   

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II      

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

          The  complainant submit that  he paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 11.5.2011 as advance by way of cheque the same was acknowledged by the opposite party and the complainant was one of the pilgrims for the trip organized by the opposite party for the Holy Mount Kailash.    The complainant further submit that he also paid the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party  for boarding and lodging charges for the package including stay at Nepal and other incidental expenses for visa processing at Nepal – Kodhari border as per the instruction by the opposite party.  The said trip commenced on 3.8.2011 and concluded on 16.8.2011.   As per the schedule the complainant and other pilgrims nearly about 110 persons reported at Katmandu on 3.8.2011.   The complainant sates that the opposite party arranged the meeting on 4.8.2011 at Katmandu  describing about the various pilgrim places of visits and mode of journey and other travel trips.   The complainant described on 5.8.2011 and 6.8.2011 pilgrims were stayed at Katmandu and without any reason they had stayed at Kathmadu and after they made lot of interrogation and quarrel with the representative of the tour organizer.  It was informed the process of visa was got delay and from 6.8.2011 to 11.8.2011 all the pilgrims including the complainant were left on the streets in Nepal and no proper food and shelter was provided by the opposite party resulting in pain and suffering.    Because of the delay in getting group visa for three days the entire tour programme was jolted.    Only on 9.8.2011 the opposite party made arrangement to visit the tourist spot to avoid delay.  Only on 10.8.2011 the opposite party arranged mini buses to pickup pilgrims to Parayang as against the promise of carrying the pilgrims by way of Toyata Land cruisers.  The pilgrims along with complainant reached Manasarovar on 11.8.2011 and for which to see the outer Parikrama collected Rs.12,000/- from each pilgrim towards the hiring charges for horse and helper.   Because of the delay in getting the visa the schedule programme on 13.8.2011 the opposite party refunded the extra amount collected Rs.12,000/-per person from the pilgrims.     Since the visa was expired on 16.8.2011 the opposite party could not take the pilgrimage as assured and informed the pilgrims those who want to visit outer and inner Parikrama it is to be on their risk.  The complainant and other pilgrims left Darchen Camp crossed the borders of  Nepal and reached Katmandu on 15.8.2011 at 8 p.m.   The purpose of visit to Mount Kailash was not completed and the complainant had faced lot of problems with the Hotel authorities where they have not dully accommodated.   The complainant further submit that he not only paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- but also paid Rs.60,000/- has directed by the opposite party by way of demand draft to Jai Kailash Tours and Travels.  Neither Richa Tours and Travels nor Jai Kailash Tours and Travels approached and contacted the complainant and other pilgrims. But somehow the pilgrims used their influences to make arrangement at the destination point in the Kathmadu where the opposite party  failed to arrange and accommodate the complainant and other pilgrims in a proper way and made them suffer at the destination point.    As such the act of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   As such the complainant sought for claim  to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards the cost for the entire trip and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.17,300/- towards Air ticket charges incurred by the complainant.      Hence the complaint.

Written version of opposite party is briefly as follows:-

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.     The opposite party admitted that the complainant contacted the opposite party agency at the aforesaid address intend to travel to Holy Mount for inner Parikrama as per the schedule of arrangement made by the opposite party in confirmation with Richa Tours & Travels, Nepal.  The opposite party submit that the delay in issuing the visa and immigration processes, delayed by some days.    Where some of the allegations made by the complainant are vehemently denied.   Further the opposite party submit that as described the above Trip to Holy Mount Kailash organized totally by the opposite party alone.  As stated in the Pamphlet issued it is within the Rules of Chinese, Tebitian and Indian Government rules and the prevalent weather conditions  accordingly everything is arranged.  Failure to provide decent accommodation, boarding and lodging at the time of the trip as assured and promised by the opposite party in the pamphlet.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs. 

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite party   filed  and no documents was marked on the side of the  opposite party.    

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7  were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party  and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     Consumer Protection Act u/s 2 (1) (g) and 14 (1) (d), 15, tours and travels inconvenience caused to the complainant and the alleged deficiency of the service provider.  The complainant  paid the consideration of Rs.5,000/- as advance by way of cheque on 11.5.2011 for a tour organized by the opposite party and his tour commences on 3.8.2011 and conclude on 16.8.2011 by carrying pilgrims to Mount Kailash for carrying about 110 persons through travel agency in Nepal by name Richa tours and Travels.   Based on the advertisement given by the opposite party for travel to Holy Mount Kailash for inner Parikrama.    As per the schedule the complainant and other pilgrimage reported at Katmandu (Hotel landmark) on 3.8.2011.  The complainant sates the opposite party arranged the meeting on 4.8.2011 at Katmandu  describing about the various pilgrim places of visits and mode of journey and other travel trips.   The complainant describes on 5.8.2011 and 6.8.2011 pilgrims were stayed at Katmandu and without any reason they had stayed at Kathmadu and after they made lot of interrogation and quarreled with the representative of the tour organizer, it was informed, the process of visa was got delay and from 6.8.2011 to 11.8.2011 all the pilgrims including the complainant were left on the streets in Nepal and no proper food and shelter was provided by the opposite party resulting in pain and suffering.    Because of the delay in getting group visa for three days the entire tour programme was jolted.  Only on 9.8.2011 the opposite party made arrangement to visit the tourist spot to avoid delay.  Only on 10.8.2011 the opposite party arranged mini buses to pickup pilgrims to Parayang as against the promise of carrying the pilgrims by way of Toyata Land cruisers  the pilgrims along with complainant reached Manasarovar on 11.8.2011 and for which to see the outer Parikrama collected Rs.12,000/- from each pilgrim towards the hiring charges for horse and helper.   Because of the delay in getting the visa the schedule programme on 13.8.2011 the opposite party refunded the extra amount collected Rs.12,000/-per person to the pilgrims.     Since the visa was expire on 16.8.2011 the opposite party could not take the pilgrims as assured and informed the pilgrims those who want to visit outer and inner Parikrama it is to be on their risk.    The complainant and other pilgrims left Darchen Camp crossed the borders of  Nepal and reached Katmandu on 15.8.2011 at 8 p.m.   The purpose of visit to Mount Kailash was not completed and the complainant had faced lot of problems with the Hotel authorities where they have not dully accommodated.   

7.     The complainant not only paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- but also paid Rs.60,000/- has directed by the opposite party by way of demand draft to Jai Kailash Tours and Travels.  Neither Richa Tours and Travels nor Jai Kailash Tours and Travels approached and contacted the complainant and other pilgrims but somehow the pilgrims used their influences to make arrangement at the destination point in the Kathmadu where the opposite party  failed to arrange and accommodate the complainant and other pilgrims in a proper way and made them suffer at the destination point which proves it is a deficiency of service by the service provider.  The complainant contended that having received the consideration it is bounden duty of the service provider to execute and proper arrangements should have been made the failure of the opposite party resulted in to mental agony and financial strains to the complainant.  Hence the complainant seeking a refund of Rs.65,000/- plus Rs.17,300/- where the complainant had paid fare by travelling  and also sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.    

8.     The opposite party’s  learned counsel by way of proof affidavits and written arguments contended that the allegations and averment preferred by the complainant are false and frivolous.  The opposite party had not disputed about the receipt of consideration Rs.65,000/- (Rs.5,000/- received by the opposite party as advance and as per the direction of the opposite party received draft in favour of Jai Kailash Tours and travels). The learned counsel disputed that the complainant has not given a strict proof of evidence about the failure of arrangements on the part of opposite party and the delay arose it is not on the part of opposite party it is because of the Government and visa authorities to release the visa whereby they are not held responsible for the delay and the complainant had accompany with other pilgrims and the places were promised. The complainant visited excluding certain places due to the restricted time limit given by visa authority expires on 16.8.2011.   The opposite party’s leaned counsel in the oral arguments also confirmed that it is the complainant who took certain decision on his own accord it is not the opposite party.   

9.     Pursuant on the complaint filed by the complainant, proof affidavit,  and documents filed by the complainant and the written version,  proof affidavit and the oral arguments submitted by the leaned counsel of the opposite party we found 1) the complainant and the opposite party not disputed about the consideration paid by the complainant to the opposite party Rs.65,000/-. 2) having received the consideration it is duty of the opposite party to arrange a proper tour programme as promised and given by way of literature to each pilgrims stating they will take the pilgrims from Chennai to Mount Kailash and Manasarovar by Ex.A1 and the schedule of Tour from 3.8.2011 to 20.8.2011 and also the promise  taking the pilgrims on return journey from Nepal to Korrakpur by Delux bus then from Korrakpur to Chennai by train where the pilgrims schedule to reach Chennai on 22.8.2011 (Ex.A2).   The opposite party also informed by receiving the pilgrims at Kathmadu by their agencies Jai Kailash Tours and Travels and Richa Tours and travels which was not executed properly the complainant had submitted the proof of payment in Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 and proof of travel by air in Ex.A5 and alleging the deficiency the complainant served the legal notice to the opposite party under Ex.A6.    Having received the legal notice the opposite party had not bothered to give any reply to their complainant’s counsel and to the complainant which shows it is the dereliction of the duty of the opposite party in taking care on the side of the complainant 3) it is a duty of the organizer of the tour to arrange visa procedures well in time not at the far end after the arrival of the tourist at Kathmadu the opposite party / his agencies failed to take adequate precautions in arranging the getting of his visa resulted in delay of process of visa for three days which resulted into other programme could not be executed in timely manner.   Moreover the opposite party’s representative at Kathmadu should have taken adequate care in accommodating the pilgrims and they should not have left in the street without proper food and shelter resulting in pain and agony.   4)  the opposite party in arranging the travel by the promise given in accommodating Toyota but they had been taken by mini buses to places of visit where the opposite party had not kept the promised as assured.  5) the opposite party had promised the pilgrims to make the passengers to come by delux bus from Kathmadu up to Korrakpur  and car to Chennai where the complainant had not travel in train by travelled in air resulted in loss of money where the opposite party has to give back the money collected for train travel.

10.    The opposite party’s counsel had cited Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai Judgment III (2011) CPJ  348 in the case of G. RADHAKRISHNAN  ..Vs.. SHREE RAJ TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD  and decided on 13.5.2011 “Inconvenience suffered for food,  accommodation - Alleged deficiency in service it is held that  “opposite party are not running airline nor he is running  his hotel no iota of his evidence is conclude the opposite party had in deficiency in service and he has only booked tickets as well as accommodation. Hence cost was imposed.

11.    Based on other judgments on National Commission and the said petition filed in this case, it is not proved by the opposite party that they have complied all the promises made to the complainant by way of literature given to them and it is proved that there was a delay in getting the visa and the complainant had suffered from 5.8.2011 to 10.8.2011 and the very purpose of the tour is defeated because of the lethargic attitude of the opposite party.  It is observed the complainant had undergone mental agony and loss of money on various grounds such as non provision of visa in time collection of Rs.12,000/- by the representative  of the opposite party at Kathmadu and refunded again.    Considering the pains and sufferings the mental agony the complainant undergone and the loss of pressure in the engaging the holy trip.   Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and there is no justification of refund of Rs.65,000/- paid by the complainant where the opposite party incurred expenditure arranging the tour, visa process boarding and lodging to repay the amount of Rs.65,000/-.  Moreover, the refund of air ticket Rs.17,300/- it is the decision of the complainant to go by air but as per the provisions given in the tour list, the opposite party promised to take the complainant by train by from Korrakpur  to Chennai.  Hence claiming refund of Rs.17,300/- will not be accepted.    Hence we hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards  litigation charges to the complainant and accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered. 

 

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount of (Rs.20,000/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  13^th  day  of  June  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of Paper Advertisement issued by opposite party.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Programme Chat issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 11.5.2011  - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party.

Ex.A4- 21.7.2011  - Copy of Demand draft for Rs.60,000/- favouring

                             M/s. Jai Kailash Tours and Travels.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Air Ticket fare.

Ex.A6- 2.2.2012    - Copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A7-         -       - Copy of  Ack. card.

 

Opposite party’s Exhibits:-   .. Nil..     

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.