Order No. 12 dt. 30/09/2019
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of visiting several places viz. Bagdogra, Lava, Rishyap, Kalimpong contacted the o.p. and requested the o.p. to provide a car at Bagdogra Airport and he specifically mentioned that Indigo or Dezire would serve the purpose. The o.p. insisted that the complainant should book Tata Sumo for the travelling through road in hill areas. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to book Tata Sumo for the total tour. The complainant also informed the o.p. that the vehicle should remain with them during the period of their travel which as agreed by o.p. The complainant faced difficulty on 6.10.18 while they were proceeding to Lava from Bagdogra Airport and the vehicle provided by o.p. was small car which took 5 hours, but since the Tata Sumo was provided which could have reached within 3 hours, for which the complainant felt sick. The complainant informed the o.p. and expressed his dissatisfaction over the car provided by o.p. The complainant was provided with a Bolero vehicle which could not go for local site seeing and the vehicle with small capacity if would have been hired by the complainant, the complainant would have to bear huge expenses. The complainant could not provide the financial demand of the local owner of the vehicle for having the small vehicle, for which the complainant could not visit the nearby places and the complainant faced difficulty to that effect. Since the complainant faced problem at the time of the said travel and o.p. took the prevailing rate of Tata Sumo at the higher rate than that of the rate prevailing at that time. The complainant had to pay the higher rate of Rs.3500/- per day, though the prevailing rate of Dezire was Rs.1500/- per day. On the basis of the said fact the complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.12,000/- as Dezire was placed in place of Tata Sumo, so the extra amount taken by o.p. was to the tune of Rs.12,000/- which has been claimed by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.12,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant is not a consumer and for financial gain the complainant could have filed the case before a competent Civil Court. It was further stated that in the month of June, 2018 for tour at various places starting from Bagdogra Airport for 6 days which was starting on 6.10.18 to 11.10.18. After discussion regarding car serviced, hotel service, rate / charge per day for car and hotel including breakfast was settled. Regarding the service of the car to the complainant, the o.p. stated the complainant that only 2 persons Tata Sumo would not be available or provide in all tourist places, but sometimes would be provided to the complainant and sometimes often suitable vehicle will be provided to the complainant for point to point destination and all liabilities of local site seeing of the complainant, but the driver of the car provided by o.p. shall help for arranging site seeing, if required or claimed by the complainant. After such discussion o.p. received contract money and issued the proper receipt for the same to the complainant and as per advice as well as mental satisfaction of the complainant, the o.p. on good faith has written in the travelling rout chart, type of car written Tata Sumo only instead of Tata Sumo or other car which will be available. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p., thereby the complainant should not be provided with any relief as prayed for by the complainant and accordingly, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant booked the car as provided by o.p.?
- Whether o.p. failed to provide the car as contracted with the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant for the purpose of visiting several places viz. Bagdogra, Lava, Rishyap, Kalimpong contacted the o.p. and requested the o.p. to provide a car at Bagdogra Airport and he specifically mentioned that Indigo or Dezire would serve the purpose. The o.p. insisted that the complainant should book Tata Sumo for the travelling through road in hill areas. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to book Tata Sumo for the total tour. The complainant also informed the o.p. that the vehicle should remain with them during the period of their travel which as agreed by o.p. The complainant faced difficulty on 6.10.18 while they were proceeding to Lava from Bagdogra Airport and the vehicle provided by o.p. was small car which took 5 hours, but since the Tata Sumo was provided which could have reached within 3 hours, for which the complainant felt sick. The complainant informed the o.p. and expressed his dissatisfaction over the car provided by o.p. The complainant was provided with a Bolero vehicle which could not go for local site seeing and the vehicle with small capacity if would have been hired by the complainant, the complainant would have to bear huge expenses. The complainant could not provide the financial demand of the local owner of the vehicle for having the small vehicle, for which the complainant could not visit the nearby places and the complainant faced difficulty to that effect. Since the complainant faced problem at the time of the said travel and o.p. took the prevailing rate of Tata Sumo at the higher rate than that of the rate prevailing at that time. The complainant had to pay the higher rate of Rs.3500/- per day, though the prevailing rate of Dezire was Rs.1500/- per day. On the basis of the said fact the complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.12,000/- as Dezire was placed in place of Tata Sumo, so the extra amount taken by o.p. was to the tune of Rs.12,000/- which has been claimed by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.12,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant is not a consumer and for financial gain the complainant could have filed the case before a competent Civil Court. It was further stated that in the month of June, 2018 for tour at various places starting from Bagdogra Airport for 6 days which was starting on 6.10.18 to 11.10.18. After discussion regarding car serviced, hotel service, rate / charge per day for car and hotel including breakfast was settled. Regarding the service of the car to the complainant, the o.p. stated the complainant that only 2 persons Tata Sumo would not be available or provide in all tourist places, but sometimes would be provided to the complainant and sometimes often suitable vehicle will be provided to the complainant for point to point destination and all liabilities of local site seeing of the complainant, but the driver of the car provided by o.p. shall help for arranging site seeing, if required or claimed by the complainant. After such discussion o.p. received contract money and issued the proper receipt for the same to the complainant and as per advice as well as mental satisfaction of the complainant, the o.p. on good faith has written in the travelling rout chart, type of car written Tata Sumo only instead of Tata Sumo or other car which will be available. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p., thereby the complainant should not be provided with any relief as prayed for by the complainant and accordingly, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant and his wife went to Bagdogra Airport and on reaching the said airport the complainant made contact with o.p. for providing a car to the complainant for their travelling to visit various places viz. lava, Rishyap, etc. The complainant has categorically stated that during the said tour agreed by o.p. that the complainant would be provide with Tata Sumo vehicle. but during their travel the complainant was provided Tata Sumo car for some part of their journey and small car was provided, but the charge taken from the complainant as the rate prevailing in respect of Tata Sumo car. The complainant ahs filed receipt to that effect. The o.p. has claimed that at the time of accepting the booking it was informed to the complainant that for local site seeing the complainant would have to hire the small car which will be arranged by the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle Since the Tata Sumo vehicle was not accessible in those places. The complainant has filed receipt to that effect that he hired the Tata Sumo vehicle and the complainant provided the charge of Tata Sumo vehicle. Due to such small car provided by o.p. to the complainant, the complainant faced hardship and the time taken was much more than that of the vehicle, if the complainant would have travelled by Tata Sumo vehicle. It appears from the materials on record that the prevailing rate of the vehicle provided by o.p. was Rs.1500/- per day, but o.p. charged Rs.3500/- per day for Tata Sumo vehicle. So the extra amount taken by o.p. for 6 days was Rs.(3500 – 1500) x 6 i.e. Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. The o.p. stated that due to mistake at the time of receiving the amount and issuing the receipt forgot to mention that the Tata Sumo vehicle along with small car would be provided for the journey of the complainant during those days. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant and his wife went to those places, but due to excessive charge demanded by the owner of the vehicle in respect of the small car and the complainant was not prepared to pay the said amount he could not visit some of the places for enjoying natural beauty of those places. In view of such evidence on record we hold that o.p. has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice in rendering their service to the complainant and as such, the complainant will be entitled to get refund of the said extra amount taken by o.p. as well as compensation and litigation cost. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.355/2018 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
