ORDER

By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:

          This complaint is filed by S. Ramesh,  aged 60 years,  “Poornima”,  Kalpetta North Post,  Kalpetta Village,  Vythiri Taluk,  Wayanad District and another  against the Manager Thomas Cook (India) Ltd,   1^st  Floor,  Palal Towers,  M.G. Road,  Ravipuram, Kochi,  Kerala- 682 016 and another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side.

          2. The allegations in the  Complainant are  that, tempted by advertisement in  various  medias the Complainants contacted the Opposite Party for their package  tour to Moscow and  St Peters Burg for  6 days.  The Complainant states that initially the  Opposite Parties informed  that the total amount for the  tour package for two person including food accommodation,  etc are  Rs.3,03,025/-  and on discussion a discount of  Rs.16,025/-  was given  by the Opposite Parties,  and had sent a package  cost summary with the details and quotation  through online.  The agreed  date for the tour was  from 06.11.2021 to 12.11.2021.  The Opposite Parties  informed that the tour programme starts only from New Delhi and the Complainants were requested  to reach at Delhi at their own expenses and accordingly the Complainants  booked their flight tickets to New Delhi to joint the tour programme.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties subsequently informed through  phone that the tour  programme is cancelled without  assigning  any lawful or excusable  reasons  which  resulted in mental agony and loss to the Complainants which  amounts to deficiency of service and  unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite parties.  Complainant states that even though Complainants approached the Opposite Parties for return of the amount paid by them,  upon compulsion, through phone,   the Opposite Parties returned  only Rs.2,54,722/-.  According  to the  Complainant they are liable to give the  balance of Rs.32,278,  and Rs.17,298/-  spent for flight ticket and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and  hence the Complainant praying for a direction to pay Rs.32,278/-  being the balance amount and for other  reliefs. 

          3. Upon  notice  Opposite Parties entered into  appearance and filed their common version  contenting that the   Complainant is not maintainable and the Complainants are not consumer  under  the Consumer Protection Act.  According to the Opposite Parties, the tour was called  office on 25.10.2021 due  to  a  pandemic  related lock down announced in Russia and the Opposite Party offered date change to the client for December 2021 but they were unwilling  to travel  stating personal reasons.  The Complainant  refuses to take into notice that the   procedures  until  the stamping  of visa were done.  They took a stand to receive the full  amount paid to the Opposite Party without considering  the expenses incurred for the pre travel procedures undertaken by the  Opposite Party.  Copies of Visa and tickets booked were also shared to the Complainants by the Opposite Parties and on 08.12.2021,  the amount excluding  the cost  incurred  for tickets and visa stamping  was returned to the Complainants.  According to the Opposite Party   the passengers themselves  had arranged the tickets to   come to Delhi from where the  trip  commenced and the Opposite Party  is not liable  for the same.   There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite  Party  and is liable to pay any amount to the Complainant.  The  Complainant is filed without  disclosing the true facts   and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence  of PW1  and Exts.A1 to A3series  from  the side of the Complainant.  Opposite Party filed  only the proof affidavit but not entered into the box for cross examination and submitted no oral evidence.

          5. The following  are the points to be analysed in the case to derive into an interference of the facts.

1.  Whether the Complainant   had sustained  to any deficiency of  service or unfair trade practice from the side of the  Opposite Parties?
2. If so the compensation  and costs for which the Complainant is entitled to get?

6. The specific case of the Complainant  is that  tempted by the advertisement

of  Opposite Parties,  the Complainants booked tour package and  paid the  money as claimed by the Opposite Parties.  It was informed by the Opposite Parties that  tour programme  starts only from  New Delhi and the Complainant were requested to reach New Delhi at own expenses.  Subsequently Opposite Parties informed that the tour programme  is cancelled and paid back only a portion of the expenses incurred which is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties.

          7. On the other hand,  the Opposite Parties put forward the case that it is not due to  their fault,  but due to pandemic  related lock down announced in Russia,  the tour programme was cancelled.  Even though the Opposite Parties offered a change of date  to December 2021,  the Complainants were unwilling  for the same stating personal reasons.  Till then the procedures  including  the stamping of visa were undertaken by the Opposite Party.   Hence they returned the amount after deducting the expenses incurred.  According to  1^st  Opposite Party they are not liable to pay the flight charges  incurred  by the Complainants to reach Delhi and hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from their side.

          8. In this case  tour package and the payment of money etc are admitted  by the Opposite Party.  Ext.A2 shows total payable amount  is Rs.3,03,025/-   A3 series shown both the Complainants paid Rs.1,43,500/- each  totaling Rs.2,87,000/-  to the Opposite Party through Google pay.  It is  admitted by  both the parties that only an amount of Rs.2,54,722/- is returned by the Opposite Parties.  During cross examination of PW1 by  1^st  Opposite Party,  it is deposed that   “Delhi hsc-bp-ff     conveyance t\cn-s«-Sp-¯-XmWv.  Covid pandemic  aqew Oct 2021 apX tour call for sNbvXXv ]d-ªn-«nÃ.”  PW1 further  deposed that “Date change sNbvXpsIm­pff Hcp package   DÄs¸-Sp-¯m-sa¶v FXr-I£n Adn-bn-¨n-cp-¶nÃ.  It is also deposed that “Travel Call for  sNbvXXv FXnÀ I£n-bpsS hogvN-sIm-­Ã  Tour \S-¡m-Xn-cp-¶-sX¶v Rm³ a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. Ticket IÄ cancel sN¿m³ R§Ä¡v ]än-Ãm-bn-      cp-¶p.   Country  restriction Dff hnhcw FXnÀ I£n Fs¶ Adn-bn-¨n-cp-s¶¶v      ]d-ªm icn-b-Ô.

       9. In this case,  even though  the proof affidavit was filed,  Opposite Party not entered  into the box.  There is also no evidence to show that the cancellation of tour package and the date  change option are informed to the Complainant in time.   According to the Complainant the fact of cancellation of tour programme was informed to the Complainant only on  04.11.2021 that too over phone.  Even though the Opposite Party put forward a case that they have completed the procedures including the stamping of visa they have failed to produce evidence before the Commission to  substantiate their claim.  More over,  even after  filing  version and chief affidavit, before the Commission denying the allegations in the complaint,   the 2^nd Opposite Party had not entered into the box to give evidence which shows that Opposite party  do not have  any counter to state against the allegation framed  by the Complainant.

          10.  As far as the   evidence of   the  Complainant  is  concerned  there is  no

evidence to show that the Complainants had reached  Delhi as requested by the Opposite Parties and hence they have lost the money on that ground.

          11.  Considering the entire facts and evidences adduced, the Commission  found that the Complainants  have proved  point No.1 in their favour,  and hence the following orders are passed.

1.  The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.32,278/-  (Rupees Thirty Two thousand  Two hundred and Seventy Eight only) to the Complainant being the balance amount paid by the Complainants
2. The Opposite Parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/-  (Rupees Forty thousand  only) towards compensation.
3. The Opposite Parties are also liable  for Rs10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.

Needless to say that both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for

the amount and are to be  paid within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order otherwise the Opposite Parties shall be  liable for 9% interest from the date of order till date of realization.

          Hence Consumer Case  partly allowed.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  20^th  day of  November  2024.

Date of filing: 28.12.2021.                                                                     

                                                                                 PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER   :  Sd/-        

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainants:

PW1.           Ramesh. S.                               Business.              

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.   

Exhibits  for the Complainants:

A1.       Copy of  Proforma  Invoice.                     dt:11.10.2021.

A2.       Copy of Package  Cost Summary.

A3 series (4 Nos.)  Copy of Receipts.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.   

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                               MEMBER   :  Sd/-