Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

224/2014

P.Rajendran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Manager , sales Make My Trip.com, - Opp.Party(s)

L.Dhamodaran

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  07.11.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 28^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.224/2014

 

 

R.Rajendran,

A-1, Corner Store, Plot No.18,

AGS Colony Main Road,

Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Assistant Manager – Sales,

Make My Trip.com,

Shop G-6, Ground Floor,

Gee Gee Emerald,

No.151, Village Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 05.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.L.Dhamodaran, K.Ramesh,

                                                                    L.Chandrasekaran

 

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : V.Selvaraj, Ch.Venugopal Moorthy

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party has advertised that they are arranging travel package for the European Countries including boarding, lodging, sightseeing and other facilities.  The travel package is to the city of Paris, Lucerne, Interlaken, Venice, Florence and Rome. As per itinerary of the tour programme was for 12 nights and 13 days. The accommodation will be arranged in three star hotels. The tour cost per adult on triple share is Rs.1,34,615/-. The complainant agreed to avail the said package for himself, his wife and his son and paid the cost of Rs.4,03,845/-.

          2.  The opposite party provided itinerary to the complainant at the time of booking for travel and accordingly they left Chennai on 21.07.2013. In Rome the opposite party supposed to accommodate them in a three star hotel Athena or similar. However, the opposite party booked a hotel by name All Comfort Astoria Palace which is not a three star hotel. The complainant family members lost joy and pleasure of the travel due to stay in the said hotel. The opposite party has booked the train ticket from Interlaken to Venice and booked the hotel at Mestre, which is far away from Venice. The opposite party has not informed the complainant to get down at Mestre Station. Due to the negligence and improper arrangement of the opposite party, the complainant has to walk long distance by walk with their luggage and belongings to cross the bridge to come down to Bus/Taxi stand. The whole afternoon was wasted due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party.

3. The travel packages are inclusive of Excursion to Pisa. The entry ticket for Pisa Tower was not arranged and the complainant and his family could not get an entry to view the Pisa Tower. The said act of the opposite party is sheer negligence. The complainant and his family had spent lakhs and lakhs of rupees for their travel package. But on the other hand the arrangement made by the opposite party caused hardship only to the complainant.

4. After returning to Chennai the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party aforesaid deficiencies. The opposite party not cared and however offered to issue travel voucher of Rs.10,000/-. The deficiency committed by the opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant and the same cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, the complainant issued legal notice dated 28.11.2013 to the opposite party and filed this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for their deficiency in service with cost of the complaint. 

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party is a Private Limited Company in-corporated under the companies act, 1956. They used to arrange tour and they have offices at New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmadabad and Gurgaon. As per the terms and conditions of the opposite party the courts at Delhi alone have jurisdiction in this case. Therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

          6. The opposite party admits that the complainant approached him on 29.06.2013 and booked tour package for three persons in the name and style of “Wonders of Paris – Swiss – Italy and the duration for 12 nights and 13 days. The place of visits and tour costs are admitted. The complainant was fully satisfied about the tour programme.

          7. After completion and on return from tour, the complainant alleged the following deficiencies against the opposite party.

i. Arranged substandard hotel in Rome;

ii. Not offered entry pass of Pisa Tower;

iii. He was not informed to get down at Mestre Railway station which was close to his hotel at Venice thereby complainant allegedly had to walk a long distance.

          As per the tour itinerary, the accommodation for the complainant was made in “All Comfort Residentia” which is a three star hotel having all amenities. The complainant never contacted this opposite party regarding substandard hotel issue. Regarding the second allegation, the complainant was not being offered entry pass to Pisa Tower, this opposite party never committed for the entry pass to Pisa. In the itinerary, it is clearly made that the complainant shall be given a stopover at Pisa and not more than that. The Mestre Railway Station which was closed to the complainant hotel at Venice. The complainant wanted to visit Venice in his part of trip and therefore, the opposite party in good faith booked the train ticket and told the complainant to get down at Venice Railway Station instead of Mestre. Therefore none of the deficiencies alleged above by the complainant have not been proved against this opposite party. The other allegations made in the complainant are denied. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

           1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

9.POINT NO:1   

            It is an admitted fact that the opposite party made an advertisement that they are arranging travel package for the European Countries including boarding, lodging, sightseeing and other facilities and the travel package to the city of Paris, Lucerne, Interlaken, Venice, Florence and Rome and as per itinerary the tour programmed was for 12 nights and 13 days and  the accommodation will be arranged in three star hotel and  the travel cost  per adult on triple share is Rs.1,34,615/- and the complainant agreed to avail the said package for himself, his wife and his son and he paid the cost of Rs.4,03,845/- and the opposite party provided  Ex.A1itinerary to the complainant at the time of booking for travel  and accordingly they left Chennai on 21.07.2013 and after travelling the aforesaid places they returned to Chennai.

          10. The opposite party would contend that as per the terms and conditions only the Delhi Courts having jurisdictions to entertain this complaint. However, in the case in hand the opposite party carrying on business at Chennai and the complainant paid the tour package amount at Chennai and the tour started only at Chennai and therefore the cause of action arose at Chennai and hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and accordingly this point is answered.           

11. POINT NO :2                  

The complainant alleged the following deficiencies against the opposite party are that

i. Provided only Substandard hotel in Rome and not three star hotel as agreed,

ii. Not offered entry pass for Pisa Tower and

iii. He was not informed to get down at Mestre Railway station which was close to his hotel at Venice thereby the complainant allegedly had to walk a long distance.

It is not in dispute that the opposite party agreed to arrange three star hotels at Rome and further the opposite party arranged “All Comfort Astoria Palace” for the complainant and his family members stay.  According to the complainant the said hotel was not a three star hotel and it is a substandard hotel and his stay was not joyful and pleasure on the day and hence the opposite party committed deficiency in service. To prove the same the complainant filed Ex.A7 brochure copy of the said hotel.  Nowhere in the said brochure it was mentioned as three star hotel. On the contrary the opposite party  would contend that the said hotel was a three star hotel and to prove his contention he had   filed Ex.B4 copy of the review of the said hotel. On perusal of Ex.B4 we are unable to find out the said  “All Comfort Astoria Palace” is a three star hotel. Therefore we hold that the opposite party has not provided three star hotels to the complainant at Rome and in this respect, it is held that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          12. In the tour package, visiting Pisa Tower is also a programme. The complainant alleged that no entry ticket provided by the opposite party to visit Pisa Tower. The opposite party would contend that they have not agreed to provide entry ticket and the traveler themselves have to bear the cost. Ex.A1 is the brochure cum itinerary issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  In that itinerary at page 1 under the heading Tour Cost Inclusions, several items were mentioned including Excursion to Pisa. As per the above heading the opposite party agreed to bear the cost including excursion to Pisa. Therefore, the opposite party as per itinerary has to bear the  cost of entry ticket to Pisa and also failure to bear the same is deficiency on the part of the opposite party and hence we conclude that in this respect also the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          13.  According to the complainant he was not informed to get down at Mestre Railway station which was close to his hotel at Venice thereby the complainant allegedly had to walk a long distance. It is this specific case of the opposite party in his written version that the complainant wanted to visit Venice and therefore he had arranged ticket for Venice railway station instead of Mestre and also informed him to get down and hence he had not committed any deficiency in service in this respect. This fact was not denied by the complainant in his proof affidavit. Therefore we hold that only at the request of the complainant the opposite party arranged ticket for Venice Railway Station and asked him to get down at Venice instead of Mestre Railway Station and therefore it is held that the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service in this respect.             

14. POINT NO:3

          We held above in point no.2 that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not arranging three star hotels at Rome and also not arranged entry ticket at Pisa Tower and such   deficiency is negligence on the part of the opposite party and thereby caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.        

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five  thousand  only) towards  compensation for deficiency in service and  mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th   day of November 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated         NIL                      Detail of Travel Brochure – Itinerary

Ex.A2 dated 18.09.2013                   Mail Communication

Ex.A3 dated 28.11.2013                   Lawyer’s Notice

Ex.A4 dated 09.01.2014                   Reply

Ex.A5 dated 22.01.2014                   Letter to the opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 24.07.2014                   Reminder Lawyer’s Notice              

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     The copy of the Board of Resolution dated

                                                    December 4,  2014 issued in favor of the

                                                    Mr.Saurabh Taneja by the opposite party

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     The copy of User Agreement incorporating the

                                                     Terms and Conditions as applicable and agreed

                                                    between the parties

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     The copy of Tour Itinerary supplied to the

                                                    complainant

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     The copy of online review of Hotel All Comfort

                                                     Residenzia

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Vouchers issued to complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT