Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

105/2015

C.Mahendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Yatra.com - Opp.Party(s)

C.Palani

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.06.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.01.2018

 

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 23^rd  DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.105/2015

 

 

Mr.C.Mahendra Kumar,

S/o Mr.A.Champalal,

Residing at No.1, V.M.Street,

2^nd Cross,

Gummidipoondi – 601 201.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager, Yatra.com.,

6^th Floor, Tower D,

Unitech, Cyber Park,

Sector – 39,

Gurgaon – Haryana- 122 002.

 

2.The  Manager,

Yatra.com.,

Suite No.202,

Capital Towers,

Second Floor,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam Opp.Palmgrove Hotel,

Chennai -34.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 08.07.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.C.Palani,S.Venkatesan

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : V.Rajagopal        

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay a compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- for hardship and mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant booked the Darjeeling - Gangtok package on 15.09.2014   and paid sum of Rs.2,18,000/- towards full package cost inclusive of Flight Tickets, hotel accommodation in star category for 8 nights 9 days for each couple and also Air Conditioned Vehicle for site seeing. The complainant and his friend’s participants were informed that the opposite party representative will receive them at Bagdogra Airport and a Sumo Car was arranged for site seeing. The opposite party informed that in Darjeeling as per Government Rule Sumo is only available for transport and the complaint having no other option accepted for the same.  Before starting the tour, one of the couple due to medical emergency could not travel with them as planned and the same was also informed to opposite party.

          2. Only after waiting for three hours outside the hotel at Darjeeling they were informed by one Mr.Aviek Shah to book some other hotel and the amount would be refunded. The complainant had to look for several hotels on their own and finally got a stay for 3 nights at Hotel Seven Seventeen and they had to pay for hotel out of their own pockets. The complainant states that they were also equally shocked and surprised to find that Innovas and Xylos were very much available in Darjeeling and they could not understand why they were told that as per Government Rule only Sumo is permitted in Darjeeling.

          3. From Darjeeling they went to Gangtok and even there when they reached the “Hotel View Point” they were once again shocked to find that it was labour class hotel much less than a 3 star hotel as there was no parking facility and the hotel was stinking with liquor and cigarettes. They had to carry the luggage for more than a half a kilometer to reach the hotel. Once again they had to search for suitable accommodation in other hotel and had to pay from their own pockets. The complainant further states that on one full day they had to arrange their own vehicle as the vehicle booked by opposite party did not turn up. Over all the entire tour was a mishap that the opposite party failed to provide proper accommodation and arrangements even though they received the entire payment in advance.

          4. After reaching Chennai when the complainant contacted the opposite party representative and demanded the refund of the amount spent on accommodation and for cancellation of tour for one couple. To the tune of Rs.46,097/- was only refunded towards the cancellation of tour of one couple. The complainant had sent several emails to opposite party explaining the problems and difficulties faced by them during the entire tour and calling upon the opposite party to refund the cost and expenses incurred by them, but there is no response or reply from opposite party side. Hence the complainant issued legal notices and since there was no response, he had filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- for hardship and mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties are only a platform to book tickets through their website. They have terms of the Master User Agreement. After accepting the terms the user will book the ticket. The 1^st opposite party is at Gurgaon, Haryana and the complainant booked the tickets through the computer system of the opposite party and payment received at Gurgaon and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction. This opposite party is only facilitator and he arranged various services from various third party service providers for arranging the tour. Since the opposite parties are only facilitator the complainant is not a Consumer to this opposite parties.

          6. On September 15^th 2014 the complainant  booked a tour package from the website of opposite party for 8 nights and 9 days commencing from 27.10.2014 for an amount of INR. 2,18,000/- for six (6) persons on twin sharing basis. On October 26^th, 2014 a day prior to the commencement of the tour at the last moment complainant requested to cancel booking for two persons. On the same day the opposite party informed to the complainant  that the hotel reservations are non-refundable due to last minute cancellations but the flight refund will be processed subject to the cancellation charges as deducted by the airlines and the said refund in total would amount to INR.23,634/-.

          7. On October 27^th, 2015 when the complainant reached hotel Sanderling at Darjeeling for check in, he came to know that the hotel Sanderling is under renovation. As soon as the complainant informed the opposite party about the same the representatives of the opposite party immediately arranged for an alternative accommodation, but the same was denied by the complainant and he arranged for his own accommodation. Nonetheless, the opposite party processed full refund  against the said  hotel booking amounting to INR 22,462.53 (including the 03^rd room for which the complainant had cancelled the booking on October 26^th , 2014 thereby making the said amount non-refundable) as a gesture of goodwill to the complainant. Therefore, a total refund of INR 46,097/- bearing transaction No.201411149095783 was refunded to the complainant  on November 14^th 2014.

          8. It is vehemently denied that hotel view point was a below standard and the said hotel is a three star property having which has been accredited with four star rating on Trip Advisor, one of the leading travel review website.  The opposite party is mere facilitator and had booked for an AC cab well in advance which is clearly mentioned in the itinerary annexed. Hence, these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer and this Forum has jurisdiction

               to entertain this complaint?

 

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

 

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

 

10. POINT NO :1        

          According to the opposite parties they are only platform and facilitating in organizing the tour through third parties and therefore they are not actual service providers and only the third parties are the service providers and hence the complainant is not a Consumer for opposite parties. The opposite parties have collected the amount for the tour   and organizing the tour through his other service providers or other persons. When the opposite parties received the consideration for providing flight tickets, hotel accommodation and other vehicle for transport and the tickets were also booked through his platform/website, the opposite parties are regarded as primary service provider in respect of the complainant and other passengers.  The complainant and others are directed to contact only with the opposite parties and not with the third party service providers. Therefore, as far as the complainant and others are concerned, the opposite parties are only the service provider to them and hence, it is held that the complainant is a Consumer.

          11. The opposite parties would contend that the tickets booked at Gurgaon through computer and the amount received by them at Gurgaon and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and only the Gurgaon will have the jurisdiction. The complainant booked tickets and paid the amount only from Chennai. All the mails from the opposite parties addressed to the complainant who is residing at Chennai. Therefore the transaction is started only at Chennai and hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the contention of the opposite parties are rejected in this regard.

12. POINT NO:2

          The admitted facts are that the opposite parties advertised a tour to Darjeeling - Gangtok package and the complainant decided to book the trip for himself and his wife and two other family friends in all six persons and accordingly he booked on 15.09.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- towards  fully packages cost inclusive of flight tickets and accommodation in three star category for 8 nights 9 days. The booking correspondence is marked as Ex.B1. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.2,17,800/- for all six persons towards the  packages through Ex.A1.  Before starting the tour one of the couples V.Mahendar Kumar and M.Manjula did not travel and the same was informed to the opposite parties and the tour was also performed and the complainant in all four person participated in the tour and returned to Chennai.

          i. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties are that on reaching Bagdogra one Ms.Seema picked them in a non A.C vehicle to Darjeeling and on reaching the hotel they found that the hotel was under renovation  and closed for the past three months and thereafter the complainant themselves arranged a hotel and stayed for three nights at Hotel Seven Seventeen and paid out from their own pocket.

          ii. On reaching Gangtok they have been taken to the “Hotel View Points” and they found that it was labour class hotel, not a three Star Hotel and hotel was stinking with liquor and cigarettes and hence the complainant found an accommodation in another hotel and paid from their own pocket and over all the entire tour was not happy and the opposite parties failed to provide proper accommodation and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          13. The opposite parties themselves admits in their written version that on reaching Hotel Sanderling on Bagdogra there was renovation and hence for the complainant and others they arranged hotel and however in the mean time, the complainant themselves arranged hotel and denied the offer of the opposite parties and hence for room accommodation they have refunded a sum of  Rs.22,462/- as in Ex.A5 at page 51 of the documents and hence not committed deficiency in service.

          14. The complainant also admits that the opposite parties refunded a sum of Rs.46,097/- and after return to Chennai and after demand made by the complainant. The opposite parties sent mail refunding a sum of Rs.46,097/- and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.22,462/- for hotel and another sum of Rs.23,634/- for flights and the same is found in Ex.A5 at page 51.

          15. The flights tickets charges mentioned for the two persons who have not traveled in the last minutes and inspite that as a gesture that amount was refunded to the complainant. The opposite parties admit that at Bagdogra the complainants stayed in a hotel arranged by himself and hence the aforesaid amount was refunded.   The hotel already booked by the opposite parties for the stay of the complainant and others admittedly under renovation. The complainant was also already refunded with room charges. Hence, we found that there is no deficiency committed by the opposite parties.

          16. The next allegation of the complainant is that the hotel booked at Gangtok Hotel View Point is not a three star hotel and it is a labour class hotel. The opposite parties vehemently deny the contention of the complainant and filed Ex.B4 to show that the Hotel View Point is a three star hotel. The complainant has not filed any document to show that the hotel view point is not a three star hotel. The complainant also got another accommodation at Bagdogra and paid from his own pockets. No bills produced by the complainant to show that he stayed a hotel other than Hotel View Point at Bagdogra.

          17. The opposite parties would contend that the complainant and other were stayed Hotel View Point only. Since the complainant has not produced any bills that he stayed other than the Hotel View Point at Gangtok, we conclude that the complainant and others stayed only at Hotel View Point booked by the opposite parties and therefore it is held that in this regard also the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

          18. The complainant alleged that he was provided only a non A.C vehicle at Bagdogra to reach the hotel instead of A.C vehicle and thereby committed deficiency in service. While arranging tour some minor mistake would occur, like arranging non A.C vehicle instead of A.C vehicle. Such a thing cannot be construed deficiency in service and hence this contention of the complainant is also rejected.  Hence in view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

19. POINT NO:3

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^th day of January 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 15.09.2014                   Copy of the booking detail mail correspondence

                                                     and quotation mail

 

Ex.A2 dated 17.10.2014                   Copy of the payment details

 

Ex.A3 dated 25.10.2014                   Copy of the Hotel and Flight Vouchers

 

Ex.A4 dated 06.11.2014                   Copy of the after reaching back Chennai mail

                                                    Correspondence

 

Ex.A5 dated 25.11.2014                   Copy of the refund details

 

Ex.A6 dated 03.12.2014                   Copy of the complaint letter

 

Ex.A7 dated 24.12.2014                   Copy of the legal notices

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Return Register Cover

 

Ex.A9 dated 22.01.2015                   Copy of the legal notices

 

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement by the opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     User Agreement

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Itinerary sent by the opposite parties through e-

                                                     mail to the complainant

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     E-mail from opposite parties to the complainant

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Website page of Hotel View Point at Gangtok

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT