Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/972/2022

HARISH GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARANGAN HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SANYAM BHARDWAJ

04 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/972/2022
Date of Institution	:	13/12/2022
Date of Decision	:	04/09/2024

             

Harish Goyal aged about 39 years S/o Sh. Subhash Chander Goyal, R/o #2147, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, 225 A-B, 2nd Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurugram 122001.

2. Girish Ranjan, Manager, Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, 225 A-B, 2nd Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurugram 122001.

3. Sheena Narendranath Agarwal, Director, Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, 225 A-B, 2nd Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurugram 122001.

 

..... Opposite Parties

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	OPs exparte.

 

 [2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/973/2022
Date of Institution	:	13.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	04/09/2024

             

 Dinesh Kumar Singla aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Singla, R/o A-20, Dolphin Towers, Sector 78, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

complainant.

Versus

1. Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, 225 A-B, 2nd Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurugram 122001.

2. Girish Ranjan, Manager, Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, 225 A-B, 2nd Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurugram 122001.

3. Sheena Narendranath Agarwal, Director, Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, 225 A-B, 2nd Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurugram 122001.

….Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

 

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.         The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No 972 of 2022 titled as Harish Goyal Vs. Tarangan Holidays Private Limited & Ors.   

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 9^th January 2021 complainant received a call from OP No.1, who invited the complainant and his family at hotel Homelet, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh for offers on holidays packages. On this, the complainant met with Ms. Jyoti and one Mr. Girish Ranjan OP No.2 in the said hotel where other people were also called by the Ops for the purpose of offering holidays packages. OP No.2,  the Manager of OP No.2  had allured the complainant and  able  to sell one holiday package worth Rs.15,000/- . The complainant visited the Ops alongwith his brother-in-law Dinesh Kumar Singla who is complainant in the connected complaint captioned above. The offer was for two holiday packages i.e. 3N/4D and 2N/3D, which included breakfast and dinner alongwith some other facilities.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-  i.e. the full price of the holiday package to the OPs, which was valid for two years and the copy of holiday voucher is annexed as Annexure C/1.  Similar package was also purchased  by Dinesh Kumar Singla brother-in-law of the complainant who is complainant in the connected complaint captioned above. In this manner both the complainants in the aforesaid complaints have purchased the holidays packages from the OPs vide holiday voucher Annexure C-1, which was delivered to the complainant on the next day as the same was not ready on the spot. A lot of things were promised by the Ops to the complainant even through conversation on the whatsapp  and emails Annexure C-2. Thereafter the complainant called OP No.2 number of times to book room but they time and again put off the matter  on one pretext or the other. The complainant called OP No.2 on 10.12.2021 for the booking of the room and even in the last week of December 2021 but OP No.2 did not revert back to the complainant. On this, the complainant sent an email Annexure C/3 dated 7.9.2022   asking for the refund  of the paid amount.  It is alleged that despite having holidays package of OPs, the complainant and his family made booking for Dubai in December 2022 at their own and as such the OPs have failed to render the promised and agreed  services to the complainant. The aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.  OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 29.4.2024.

3. In order to prove their case, complainant has tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that   both the complainants in the above captioned complaints have purchased holiday packages from the Ops on payment of Rs.15,000/- each as is also evident from Annexure C-1 and the said packages were valid for two years and after obtaining the said packages when the complainants tried to get booking in the hotels of the OPs as per packages, either the OPs did not revert back to the complainants  or they had shown their inability to book the same as is also evident from Annexure C-2 copy of communications  exchanged between the parties through emails, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the aforesaid  act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and the complainants in the above captioned complaints are entitled for the relief as prayed for and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainants are required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- each to the Ops for the holidays packages which were valid for two years and the OPs had agreed to provide booking to the complainants in the hotels rooms at various places and destinations.  Perusal of Annexure C-2 copies of communications exchanged between the parties through emails indicate that  the complainants had repeatedly requested the Ops to provide the booking in the hotel rooms in pursuance to the package but every time either the OPs had not reverted back to the complainants or they have shown their inability to book the room.
   3. Thus one thing is clear on record that the OPs have failed to render the promised and agreed services to the complainants despite of fact that they charged an amount of Rs.15,000/- each from both the complainants in the above captioned complaints for the holiday packages. Hence the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed
5.     In view of the above discussion, both the consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

RELIEF IN CC/972/2022

1. to refund  ₹15,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% (simple) p.a. from 1.9.2022 when the OPs did not respond to the request of the complainant.
2. to pay lump-sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and towards cost of litigation.

RELIEF IN CC/973/2022

1. to refund  ₹15,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% (simple) p.a. from 1.9.2022 when the OPs did not respond to the request of the complainant.
2. to pay lump-sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and towards cost of litigation.

6. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) in each case above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i) in each case above], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses in each case above.
7. A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of other  connected consumer complaint, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of the that file.
8. Application if any pending stands disposed off.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

4/9/2024

[Surjeet Kaur] Member

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member