BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

 Complaint Case No.  :161 of 2018.

  Date of Institution     :  21.05.2018.

                                                     Date of Decision      :   12.06.2019.

Dishant Goyal aged about 28 years son of Shri Pawan Goyal resident of Dr. Ved Beniwal Street, Begu Road, Sirsa District Sirsa.

……Complainant.

                                      Versus

The Manager, Tourscave.com, Sanwal and Chaddha Complex, Durga City Centre, Haldwani, Nainital-263139 (Uttrakhand), Contact -05946-222869.

……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:   SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

                   SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………….MEMBER

                   MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER

Present:       Smt.Suman Goyal, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Abhinav Sharma, Adv. for Op.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he had booked a package for two pax for visit to Malaysia with his wife through the authorized agent of Op for seven nights and eight days starting from 21.01.2018 to 28.01.2018. The air tickets were also included in the package with total cost of Rs.91140/-. The complainant reached in his hotel by travelling through Indigo flight on 22.01.2018 but the hotel did not allow him and his wife to enter in the room by saying that the check in time is 3 P.M. despite the fact that it was well aware about the arrival of the complainant in the hotel and even the hotel did not provide the meals as per the package. The OP also cancelled the transport facility from hotel to Airport, therefore, the complainant has to manage for the same by spending from his own pocket. The complainant contacted the Op on customer care but no faviurable response was given by it. Due to the negligence act of the Op, the tour of the complainant got spoiled as it has failed to provide the services as assured by him to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, Op appeared and filed its reply, whereby it has been submitted that the replying Op is a travel agency that assists the traveler to choose services as per their comfort and budget and a part of commission charged by the replying Op from the complainant for providing the required services was also given to Red Lotus Travels, through which the complainant had booked his tour package.  The tour package having value of Rs.94700/- was including air travel, accommodations in Langkawi and Kuala Lumpur, daily breakfast, a dinner and other leisure activities but the said package was revised as per instructions of the complainant and the revised package was having value of Rs.91140/- which included Rs.42500/- as flight cost for couple and Rs.48640/- as land cost for couple on double sharing besides air travelling, accommodation in Langkawi and Kuala Lumpur, daily breakfast, a dinner and other leisure activities. The replying Op had provided best services to the complainant as throughout the trip the complainant had tried to increase the overhead of the replying OP by asking to provide services that were not part of the tour package and even now through misusing the process of law. The services assured in the package have been provided to the complainant. Yet, the complainant remained disgruntled because he could not meet the ends of his unreasonable demands. The complainant has filed the present complaint for taking undue advantage of the law without disclosing the true and correct facts. There is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.  

4.                 We have learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.

5.                Heard. Learned counsel for the  complainant has contended that it is proved case of the complainant that he got booked a package for two pax  from OP on payment of Rs.91140/- for the period starting from 21.02.2018 to 28.01.2018 for 7 nights and 8 days to visit and stay  in Malaysia. As per the contract, the OP had to provide air tickets, stay in the hotel, breakfast on every day, dinner and transportation, but however, on the first day they were not allowed to enter in the hotel till 3 P.M.  through they reached on 10 P.M. Nor, they were provided any breakfast on the say day. It has also been contended that dinner which was to be provided was not arranged in the hotel where they were staying but in another hotel which was at a far distance. No transportation was provided rather the complainant managed their own transport, but however, they were not served with dinner and likewise no transport facility was provided to the complainant and his family on the last day from hotel to airport. Thus, all unavoidable circumstances and bitter experience spoiled the tour and newly weeded coupled returned back with bitter experience of the treatment given by Tourscave.com organizers, who were appointed by the Op.

                             On the other hand, there is specific contention of the Op that tour was organized at the will of the complainant and itinerary was confirmed which was handed-over to the complainant and complainant was well aware of the services and programs of his tour. The complainant had preferred to get a cheaper flight than a short period fight, as a result of which they were suppose to wait outside the hotel and the check in time was 3 P.M.. At the time of check in there was no time of breakfast, as a result of which the same could not be served. Dinner was arranged in a good hotel and it was advised by the concerned person that they should go by foot as there always traffic jam in the way to the hotel where they were staying to the hotel where the dinner was arranged. The behavior of the complainant throughout the tour remained uncooperative and he created nuisance in the foreign land rather  abused the hotel persons and ultimately the officials of the tour organizer had to intervened to settle the issue. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the judgments reported in   Rekhi Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yasmin E.Tavaria  2006 (3) CPJ 235 (NC), S.T.I.C.Travesl (P.) Vs. Naresh Kumar 2004 (2) CPJ 547, (Chennai State Commssion), Capital Control India Private Limited and another Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Limited 208 (4) CPJ 433 (Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), M/s Consumer Awareness & Research Society & Anr. Vs. The Managing Director, Sisa World Travel (India) 1996 (1) CPR 180 (Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), Bharat Tractors Muzaffurpur Vs. Ramchandra Pandey 1991 (1) CPJ 14 (NC), Holiday Representation Vs. Sudhir Saran Bhatnagar  2009 (4) CPJ 72 (NC), Manager, Thomas Cook India Vs. Dinesh Shrivastava 2017 (3) CGLJ 32 (Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), Davinder Singh Vs. Make My Trip 2017 (3) CLT 182 (Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and Dalia Roy and others Vs. Anindya Mukherjee 2017 (2) CPJ 258 (NC).

6.                          We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file as well as the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the OP.

7.                          The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has also tendered documents such as Itinerary Ex.C1, details of tour Ex.C2, eNTRI  Note Ex.C3, Accommodation Vouchers Ex.C4, Ex.C5, application of complainant Ex.C6, legal notice Ex.C7 and postal receipt Ex.C8. On the other hand, the Op has tendered affidavit of Sh.Arpit, Ex.RW1, whereby he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply and also tendered documents tour details and features Ex.R1, Ex.R2, Ex.R3, terms and conditions of agreement  Ex.R4 to Ex.R6, letter Ex.R7 and Annexure VIII Ex.R8.

8.                          The first allegation of the complainant is that no accommodation was provided when they reached in front of the hotel. It is admitted fact that the Itinerary was supplied to the complainant well in time before taking the light to Malaysia  and the timings of the flight was duly mentioned in the same and they were suppose to reach before the check in time of the hotel. Though the OP had assured that the hotel authorizes will allow to check in before the time but since they did not allow as per allegations of the complainant but under these circumstances the complainant cannot claim as a matter of right to change the schedule of the hotel timings to check in and we cannot presume that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. So, it cannot be accepted that at the time of check in 3 P.M the hotel authorities are supposed to serve any breakfast. Hence, this contention appears to be devoid of any merit.

9.                          Second allegation of the complainant is qua non providing of dinner. As per the averments of the complainant the dinner was arranged in a hotel where they were not staying, which was at a  far distance. There is no dispute regarding the fact that it was a legal obligation of the Op to provide a dinner to the complainant but the dinner was not arranged in the hotel where they were staying rather it was arranged at a hotel which was at some distance from the hotel where they were staying. It was legal obligation of the OP to provide necessary transportation to carry the complainant and his wife to the place of hotel where they have arranged the dinner for them. As per plea of the OP that they advised the complainant no to go by taxi but to go through foot as there remains traffic jam at that time. It is proved fact on record that the OP did not provide any service of transportation to the complainant, as  a result of which, he had to hire a taxi in order to reach there and even by reaching there they were not served with any food and they have to make their arrangement for their food. The Op cannot escape from its liability  to provide such like service to a person come from abroad who is not well aware about the location of the place where the dinner was hosted.

10.                        The third allegation of the complainant against the OP is that non providing of transportation from hotel to airport and this fact has also not been denied by the Op that it has ever provided any transportation to the complainant in reaching the air port from hotel and the complainant had to manage from his own expenses which is clearly deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is a matter of common sense that a newly wedded couple, who have gone to honeymoon to enjoy early post-wedded days by spending huge amount and have not gone there to face hardship and inconvenience, humiliation and unavoidable tensions. So, all these concluded that the OP did not bother about the services, which had agreed to provide on the tour for which its services were hired by the complainant. Non-providing of aforesaid services clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the Op are not applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the reported judgments.

11.                        In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Op to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and we also direct the Op to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                     President,

Dated:12.06.2019.                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                         Member                                                             

             DCDRF, Sirsa           DCDRF, Sirsa