Date of Filing : 29.08..2014
Date of S/R : 09.01.2015
Date of Order : 10.12.2015
- SMT. MANJU HATI,
W/o- Sri Sisir Kumar Hati.
- Sri Sisir Kumar Hati,
S/o- Lt. Biswanath Hati,
both the Complainants are residing at :
29/8/1/3 Narasingha Dutta Road,
P.S.- Bantra,District Howrah,
PIN 711101……………………………………………………………….Complainants.
Vs.
1) The Manager,
THOMAS COOK (INDIA) lTD,
19B, 1st Floor, Shakespeare Sarani,
Kolkata 700 071.
2) The Director,
THOMAS COOK (INDIA) lTD,
Thomas Cook Building, Dr. D. Noroji Road,
Fort Mumbai 400 001.
3) SPICEJET LTD.
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV
Gurgaon -122016……………………………………………… Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A LO R D E R
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the Petitioners Manju Hati and Sisir Kr. Hati against the O.P.s, Manager Thomas Coock India Ltd. and two others praying for directing the O.P.s to pay the Hotel charges for one night at Port Blare amounting to Rs. 2000/- and food expenses amounting to Rs. 4000/- with interest till actual realization and to pay Rs. 70,000/- as compensation and 20,000/- as litigation cost.
The case of the petitioners is that the O.P. 1 & 2 conduct tours and seeking their advertisement the petitioners contacted the O.P. over phone intending the travel to Andaman. The O.p. 1 & 2 sent their representative to their house at 29/8/1/3 Narashinga Dutta Road, Howrah and being convinced the petitioners issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- of Indian Overseas Bank Howrah on 19.09.2013. The petitioner again paid on 42,161/- to the O.P.s on 04.10.2013 and received cash memo. Air ticket were purchased in their name and the tour was conducted from 10.10.2013 to 15.10.2013 . As per promise the O.p. 1 & 2 did not take them to the best beach of Andaman namely ‘Radha Nagar Beach’ and their tour manager during tour of Havelock kept himself away and they came to port Blair alone. On their repeated request the management arrange one car who completed the rest tour and on the penultimate day left them in the Port Blair Airport without showing them the Naval fisheries museum which was part of tour itinerary . The flight was cancelled on that date as the O.P. 3 informed them and they had to stay back to the Port Blair hotel at the own expensed to the tune of Rs. 6000/- being 2000/- for hotel and 4000/- for food. The petitioner is a Sr. citizen and she approached the O.P. No. 1 & 2 but the O.P.s left them helpless and the petitioner became afraid of travelling of anywhere after such unwarranted acts of the part of the O.P. No. 1, 2 and 3. They had to pass anxious night and for their harassment prayed for compensation of Rs. 70,000/- . The O.P.s neglected to pay anything and so the petitioner filed this case.
The O.P. No. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying allegation made against them and submitted that the case is non maintainable and there is no deficiency on their part and this District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case U/s 11 of the C.P. Act,1986. They further submitted that that the tour to Radha Nagar Beach was conducted on 11.10.14 and it was two minutes distance to the hotel and all the guest preferred to visit Radhanagar Beach on their own. And all the passenger visited the same as could be noticed from the feedback form of one Krishna Banerjee . They further submitted that all the side scene as reflected in the itinerary was covered by the tour manager as also could be noticed by the feedback form of Krishna Banerjee who had no grievance. The O.P. NO. 1, had tour manager in Havlock and tour Manager of Portblair . The Managers of Havlock do not travel to Portblair . Further the O.P. 1 dropped all the passengers including the petitioner at Portblari with their return ticket in the O.P. 3 , Spice Zet Airlines being their Flight No. SG219 scheduled to depart from Portblair at 2.05 p.m. but the Flight was cancelled though the boarding passes was issued and the O.P.1 & 2 were unaware of the same and the Managers of O.P. 1 requested O.P. 3 to shift the passenger to other airlines so that they can come back to Kolkata and the passenger came to Kolkata on the next date by a residual flight. The O.P. No. 1 gave Hotel accommodation to all passengers including the petitioner but out of 9 passengers 5 took four star hotel on direct payment basis and the petitioners were accommodated at one star hotel which was outside Portblair and Shri Krishna Banernjee also stayed in said Hotel. In the feedback form the petitioner raised no allegation regarding deficiency in service and filed with case in malafide intension.
The O.P. 3 contested the case by foiling W/V denying the allegation made against them and submitted that the petitioners was not satisfied with the service of the O.P. 1 & 2 and the O.P. No. 3 being a operator of domestic airlines is guided the carriage by Air Act,1972 and the rules and regulations framed their under. On 15.03.2015 there was found a leakage in the LH wheel of the aircraft which was grounded for repair and of the next day the passengers availed of the flight and the delay was unavoidable and for safety reason and the O.P. 3 direct noxious with the petitioner and all payment for services was received by O.P. 1 & 2 and the case be dropped against O.P. 3.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Whether the case is maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 & 2 ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason :
All this issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of their case the petitioner filed affidavit in chief along with documents showing that they paid Rs. 42,161/- and 30,000/- to the O.P. 1 & 2, Thomas Cook India as is also admitted by the O.P. 1 & 2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner books two seats on payment of the consideration accepted by the O.P. 1 & 2 for their Andaman Tour including Portblair , Havlock ,Elephanta beach and the Island tour and back to Kolkata on the sixth day. The allegation of the petitioner is that they were not taken to Radhanagar beach while the O.P. stating that the same beach was two minutes walk from the Hotel wherein the passengers were located. Against the allegation of the petitioner that the tour manger did not accompany them from Havlock to Portblair the O.P. submitted that they have separate tour manager at Havloc and Portblair and this Forum also found nothing as to what inconvenience faced by the petitioner in the absence of the tour manger during such journey from Havlock to Portblair . They have not made any allegation for the Hotels for night stay and also the meal provided the last but not the list is allegation on 15.10.13 when the Portblair flight cancelled then they were not provided with any hotel and also food but the O.P. submitted here that they provided hotel but no documents have been provided them. The petitioners also fail to provide any documents in support of their claim of spending Rs. 2000/- for the tariff of the hotel and any received for expensed of their bill. They simple claim for Rs. 2000/- for hotel and Rs. 400/- for food. It is not believable before this Forum that two senior citizen consumer food amounting to Rs. 4000/- within a day and at best in absence of any documents for food and lodging they can be provided with Rs. 2000/- as the hotel tariff and Rs. 1000/- for night and the morning food expenses and to that extent deficiency is found on the part of the O.P. 1 & 2 who aught to have provided food and lodging to the passenger when the afternoon flight was cancelled from Portblair to Kolkata and for such deficiency the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 2000/- as compensation which is just and proper as thought by the Forum and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.
In view of above discussion this Forum and finds the case of the petitioners succeeds .
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the Consumer Case No. 480/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part with cost of Rs. 2000/- against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and dismissed against the O.P. NO. 3 .
The petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for though in part.
The O.P. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as hotel tariff and Rs. 1000/- for meal charges to the petitioners who are also entitled to get compensation for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P.s are directed to make the above total payment of Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days from the date of order failing the whole amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. and also the petitioners would be at liberty to put the order as execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah
