Date of filing : 15.06.2017
Judgment : Dt.10.1..2019
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the C. P. Act,1986 by Smt. Lopamudra Roy Shaw and Sri Sudhin Shaw alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ( referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) The Appropriate Authority , Elite Tours & Travels (2) Baba Tours & Travels, represented by Mr. B. Smhachalam.
Facts in brief are that the complainants being intended to spend holiday in Andaman contacted OP No.1 Tour and travel company on November , 2016 for arranging a tour to the said destination for themselves along with their daughter and one Rina Roy Yadav and Raina Yadav. The complainant has stated that after having discussion with OP No.1, schedule period for vacation was fixed on and from 11.01.2017 to 20.01.2017 and the complainants were provided with tour itinerary by OP No.1 for a period of 9 nights 10 days, booking form/Authorisation letter, detailing cost of Rs.1,72,000/- for package tour for five persons including cost of Rs.1,72,000/- for package tour for five persons including accommodation, air tickets and tour plan as per tour itinerary and the complainants paid Rs. 1,00,000/- & Rs. 72,000/- by cheques being Nos. 747110 dated 18.11.2016 and 762704 dated 23.12.2016 against money receipts dated 16.11.2016 and 22.12.2016. The complainants have further stated that they reached Port Blair on 11.01.2017 at 12.30 p.m. and thereafter on reaching their hotel room they found that instead of booking AC Deluxe Double Bed room as per tour itinerary the tour operator had booked only Non-A.C. rooms though it was agreed between the parties that additional charges for availing AC would be borne by the complainant and on query the complainants were informed by OP No.2 tour operator in Andaman that due to failure on the part of OP No.1 for sending advance money hotel rooms could not be booked as per itinerary and as such, the complainants had to book their rooms by paying additional charges since the said room was to have been booked by the travel agent on payment of Rs.1962/- but actual cost of such rooms was 3270/- and the complainants had to pay an amount of {( Rs.3270 – 1962 ) x 9 } Rs.26,160/- from their own pocket for booking the same. It is further stated by the complainants that apart from the said expenses the complainants had to bear further expenses to the tune of Rs. 9000/- for necessary travel arrangement which was to have been arranged by the tour operator. However, at the time of returning from Andaman the OP N o.2, travel operator handed over a cheque being no. 881433 amounting Rs. 9,000/- to the complainant but on deposition said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient fund. Further, the complainants have stated that during 10 days trip they were provided breakfast only for three days and thereafter they had to have breakfast by paying their own i.e. Rs. 50/- per day per head amounting Rs. 1750/- for 7 days and extra amount of Rs. 80/- per head for having non-vegetarian meal amounting (Rs.80 x 10 = 800 x 10 ) Rs.8,000/-, in addition to that the complainant had to pay Rs. 1600/- for their check in baggage and being aggrieve of the complainant sent letter dt. 03.04.2017 which was replied by the OP No.1. However, the complainant have stated that they obtained a copy of written complaint noted by the OP No.2 in respect of customer feedback mentioning instead of A/C Deluxe Room. Double bed room was provided the complainant had to bear the cost of Rs. 150/- per meal and Rs. 50/- for breakfast for each person – No sea facing room was provided inspite of availability - Rooms, Launch tickets, sightseeing tickets were booked on emergency basis and payment was made by the guest – itinerary provided to the guest and the travel agents should be same - Guests had to face trouble etc. The complainants have stated that they had to pay extra amount of Rs. ( 26,160/- +9000+8000+1600 ) = 47,760/-.
Accordingly, the complainants by filing the instant complaint prayed for directions upon the OPs to pay Rs.774760/- towards additional expenses incurred by them together with compensation and litigation cost.
The complainants annexed mail communication in respect of itinerary of Andaman on 11.01.2017. Authorisation letter, receipts dt. 16.11.2016 , 22.12.2016 room tariff, ferry receipts dt. 12.01.2017, 17.01.2017 , 18.01.2017 . Copy of deposit slip of cheque No. 881433. Menu card of a family restaurant. Xerox copy of Air Ticket, Luggage receipt 20.01.2017 letter dt. 3.4.2017 issued by the complainant letter dt. 14.4.2017 issued by the OP No.1 a piece of paper signed by one B. Simhachalan.
Notice were served but the OP No.2 did not turn up. So the case proceeded exparte against OP No.2 vide order No.12 dt. 28.12.2017.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying all the allegation made against the Op No.1 in the complaint petition stating inter alia, that as per request of the complainant standard non-AC room and Non-AC car were provided and it was agreed by the complainant that extra amount would be incurred by themselves had they preferred extra facilities and moreover there was no such term that the complainants should be taken to the Makruzz, as well as extra amount would be paid by OP for extra baggage. The OP No.1 has further stated that the complainants forcefully made the OP no.2 to issue cheque amounting Rs. 9,000/- in favour of the complainant to recover extra money from the OPs for their luxuries travel going beyond the terms of tour itinerary and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
The complainant and the OP No.1 adduced evidence followed by cross-examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed BNA and narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint. The complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2017 (3) CPR 52 (NC) [Haj Committee of India –vs. – Mohd. Ahsan Reja IPS & Ors ]
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 also filed BNA.
Points for determination :
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs.
- Whether the complainant in entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons :-
Both points are taken up for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admittedly the complainants along with their family members being intended to go in a vacation trip to Andaman and Nicobar Island and paid Rs. 1,72,000/- to the OP No.1.Travel agent for arranging a vacation trip.
The complainants have made allegations which are as follows :-
- The complainants have alleged that the OPs did not provide A/C, sea facing accommodation to them which they promised to provide in their itinerary which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- The complainants have further alleged that they had to pay extra amount for having non-veg dishes which had also been done on deviation on the part of the OPs from the promise as made in the itinerary.
- The complainants have also alleged that they had to pay extra amount for availing conveyance for site seeing as well as extra charges for Air travel which, as per promise as made out in itinerary , was to have been paid by the OPs and as such the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
On meticulous scrutiny of documents on record upon which the complainants have relied, it appears that in the itinerary page no-17 of petition of complaint Annexure –‘A’ the ‘Accommodation Type’ runs as – “ Family wise room will be provided as per 3 persons in a double bedded room and 4 persons in a tipple bedded room with extra bed/mattress on the floor.
The complainants have alleged that the OPs did not provide the A/C Deluxe sea facing room as per this itinerary but no such promise has been found in the said document. Therefore, deviation from promise on the part of the OP has not been proved.
In respect of allegation regarding extra payment for food it further appears from the documents on record that the complainants have not filed any money receipts showing that they have paid from their own pocket for availing non-veg food although they have filed photo copy of menu card of a Restaurant but the same does not mean that they have paid extra charges for availing non-veg dishes they have claimed.
Regarding extra payment for traveling in course of site seeing as alleged by the complainants it is stated by them that the tour operator of OP No.1 i.e. OP No.2 issued cheque amounting Rs. 9,000/- in favour of the complainant no.1 towards fund of extra amount paid by the complainants in course of site seeing. From this statement it is evident that the complainants and the OP No.2 arrived at a settlement regarding this issue viz. Extra payment for site seeing and as such the said cheque was issued. The complainants have stated that the said cheque has been dishonoured by the Bank upon which the same has been drawn. In this regard no Return Memo of the bank has been filed before us only photocopy of deposit slip and illegible copy of a cheque has been filed and no statement has been made to that effect whether the complainants have initiated any proceeding u/s. 138 of the N. I. Act in this regard.
Under such circumstances we are not in a position to pass any order regarding the alleged dishonour of cheque. To prove deficiency on the part of the OP the complainants have annexed photocopy of a piece of writing which contains no mention to any addressee, in reference of which the same has been issued and even without seal or letter head of the issuing authority claiming that the same has been issued by the OP no.2. As such the same has not been taken into consideration .
Further the complainants claimed to have paid extra charges of air travel but in absence of any documents it is difficult to ascertain that the receipts issued in connection with Air ticket holding PNR No. ZG7P6R was actually exclusive of any check in baggage.
It is , therefore evident from the discussion made hereinabove that the complainants have failed to prove their allegations and therefore, not entitled to any relief .
Point Nos. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly. In the result the consumer complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
Ordered
That CC/317/2017 is dismissed on contest against OP No. 1 and dismissed exparte against OP No.2.
