THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.369/2014

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2019

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                         Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.      :  Member​

ORDER

Present: Hon’ble Smt. Rose Jose, President:

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the tour package charges collected and to pay Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners and adequate amount to the senior citizens for their inconvenience and other sufferings due to the defective and deficient mode of service rendered by the opposite parties and also cost of the proceedings.

The case of the petitioners is that, they are the members of a tour package organized by the opposite parties from Ernakulam to Delhi and Kashmir from 10/05/2014 to 21/05/2014. The opposite parties had assured safe and secure travelling by rail in A/c coach and sightseeing journey in A/c buses, and also food and hotel accommodation monitored by well efficient tour manager. But as against their assurance the opposite parties had arranged the entire tour programme in a very careless and negligent manner extending least facilities throughout the journey. On reaching Delhi railway station they were asked to board on the bus parked 1½ kms away. So all had to struggle hard carrying their luggages. The rooms allotted in the hotels were untidy and unsafe. The rooms were not arranged for stay and halt. The opposite parties also failed to provide proper connect links to Jammu on reaching Delhi. The coach marked for journey was not attached to the Jammu Mail and so they were made to strand at the station till next day and that ultimately upset their further programmes. Small non a/c buses were arranged for road travel making the journey insecure and jam-packed.  

It is also stated that, sightseeing at Delhi were not fully carried out as assured. Air conditioned travel facilities were not provided and the journey was so miserable. Srinagar stay has not provided, tour manager or guide was not available and no sightseeing arrangements were made at Delhi and Jammu. The food served was low quality and unhygienic also. The passengers especially senior citizens suffered a lot due to the lack of proper and effective management and deficiency in service of the opposite parties and so they are liable to compensate the petitioners especially the senior citizens adequately. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.

The opposite parties filed a joint version contending that the petition is not maintainable before this Forum either in law or on facts of the case. It is contended that the reason for the delay in the journey in Delhi to Jammu was due to the non-attachment of the marked coach to the designated train by the Indian Railways and so Indian Railway is a necessary party in this petition. Without making all the necessary parties in the opposite party array this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and hence not maintainable. They denied all the allegations of the petitioner as false and baseless. It is admitted that IRCTC is undertaking and arranging tour programmes to various places and they had assured safe travelling by A/c coach, food, hotel facilities and well efficient tour manager. They had rendered all the services as per the itinerary. The special A/c. coach from Delhi has to be attached in Train No.14033 and to leave Delhi at 20.10hrs. but due to some operational reasons of Railways the coach was attached in Train No.18101 and left Old Delhi station only at 21.35 hrs and as a result the train reach Jammu only 15.15 hrs. In Clause 8, 9 and 18 of the accepted Rules and Regulations in the application for tour, it is clearly stated that “no claim will be made or make case of claim for any delay due to late running of train ie. beyond the control of IRCTC and that if any change in the tour programme, no claims will be made or make a claim or case for claim.” The Indian Railways is responsible for the delay at Delhi for which they can’t be held liable.

The allegations that air conditioned travel facility was not provided by them was denied and stated that A/c buses were arranged at Delhi Station and train coaches were also A/c coaches. It is also stated that the allegation that ‘no bus was arranged at Delhi Station and the bus was parked 1½ kms away from the station’ was not correct and stated the buses were parked just outside the station. The allegations regarding untidy and unsafe rooms was also denied and stated that it was kept clean and tidy and was safe and no deficiency in service took place at any point of time. The stay at designated hotel was arranged on previous day. As per the itinerary no sightseeing was planned on the first day at Srinagar and it starts only the 2^nd day and on 2^nd day petitioners were taken to all the places. The petitioners were given best treatment and was provided with best hotel facilities at Hotel Gulshan Valley and Hotel Riza which are having 2 star facilities. They have provided best guides to assist the tourists. Big buses are not permitted in Jammu and that is why they arranged small buses but all sightseeing were carried out as promised in the itinerary. They have provided all facilities. In Delhi fresh-up arrangements was provided at Hotel Singh Continental which is a 2 star hotel. All the tourists were insured also.

It is further stated that if there was any complaint regarding the arrangements of tour the petitioner ought to have made complaint before the concerned authority immediately. But no complaint was made by the petitioner during the tour. Without making any genuine complaint at the right time this petition is filed as an afterthought only with the intent to harass them and to grab some amounts illegally from them. Moreover the petitioners No. 9 and 10 in this petition again booked the sightseeing programme with the same IRCTC on 15/10/2014 and had again travelled but nothing has been reported against them by these 9^th and 10^th petitioners. It means that the petitioner was happy with the service rendered by them. There is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on their side as alleged and all the tourists are happy and enjoyed the tour. No damages or any other inconveniences are suffered by the passengers. The amount claimed as compensation is exorbitant and not in true with the alleged damages. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory cost.  

The matters for determinations are:

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum or not?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Reliefs and costs if any?

Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the opposite parties, Ext.s A1 to A9 and testimonies of PW1 and RW1.

Point No. 1: The opposite parties have a case that the reason for the delay atDelhi Railway Station was due to the non-attachment of the marked coach to the designated train by the Indian Railways. So according to them Indian Railway is a necessary party in this petition and this petition is bad for non-joinder of Railway in the opposite party array and hence this petition is not maintainable. Since the opposite parties had conducted the tour programme and had collected the amount from the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had made allegations only against the IRCTC and not against the Indian Railways and the IRCTC is in the opposite party array, we are of the view that the Indian Railways is not a necessary party in this petition as stated by the opposite parties and hence this petition is maintainable before this Forum.

Point No. 2: There is no dispute with regard to the booking of the trip by the petitioners or regarding the amount collected for the same. The complaints of the petitioners are that after reaching Delhi Railway Station they have to walk about 1½ kms to board the bus parked outside the station. The passengers especially the children and aged persons struggled much to board the bus carrying their luggages. The explanation given by the opposite parties is that, big buses are not permitted to enter the premises of the station. But in such situation what the opposite parties ought to have done is to make alternative arrangements like arranging mini buses or auto rickshaws to pick the passengers to the bus without causing trouble to them. Here the opposite parties was not produced any evidence to show that they had made such arrangement. The negligent attitude of the opposite parties in this regard is deficiency in service on their side. According to the petitioners they have not get enough time for fresh-up at the hotel arranged at Delhi. The opposite parties allowed only half an hour time to fresh-up for the 63 passengers. The lack of time for freshing up will definitely upset the physical conditions of the passengers after a long journey from Ernakulam to Delhi. The opposite parties should have arranged adequate facility for freshing up at the hotel. The explanation of the opposite parties that the arrangement in the hotel was only to fresh-up and not for stay is not satisfactory.

The other allegations are that the coach arranged for journey to Jammu was not attached to the scheduled train and so they are stranded at the station till next day. The delay was admitted by the opposite parties also but according to them due to some operational reasons the Railway had attached the booked coach in another train which caused the delay. This was beyond their control for which they cannot be held liable. It is true that we cannot blame the opposite parties for the said delay since it was not due to their fault. Moreover they had refunded some amounts to the passengers for the said delay and for the inconveniences caused to the passengers due to the delay. But in such circumstances the opposite parties are bound to arrange comfortable waiting room facilities to the passengers. But according to the petitioners the opposite parties has not make any such arrangement. The negligence on the part of the opposite parties in this regard is deficiency in service on their side. According to the petitioners the rooms allotted for stay at the hotels were not clean and was substandard and the food supplied also was low quality and unhygienic. According to the opposite parties this was not true and they have provided standard accommodation facilities in star hotels at Delhi and Jammu and the food served were high quality also. To rebut the claims of the opposite parties, the petitioner produced the copy of the “Details of Accommodation provided” to them by the opposite parties in the hotels at Delhi, Srinagar and Jammu and was marked as Ext. A9. In Ext. A9 the remarks given by the Supervisor Tourism IRCTC is that “Delhi, Hotel Singh Continental, performance rating – at the time of check-in the hotel was not cleaned, there was staff shortage and there was water scarcity. Srinagar, hotel Riza, floor mattress was not clean, Flush not working in one room and bed sheets were not cleaned in some rooms –Jammu, Hotel Diamond Palace, Rooms were not cleaned at the time of check-in and breakfast served late.” Sri. Thyagarajan, the Supervisor Tourism IRCTC, Chennai was examined as RW1. In cross RW1 admitted that Ext. A9 is signed by him and it carries his remarks and these remarks are true and correct. (Page 3&4 RW1). The said admission of RW1 proved that the facilities provided at the hotels for accommodation to the petitioners was substandard and unhygienic as against the claims of the opposite parties.

            The other allegations of the petitioners are that, the opposite parties had provided non-A/c buses for sightseeing and the passengers are jam-packed in the bus like animals. The reason stated by the opposite parties for the same is that big buses are not permitted in Jammu and the climate in Jammu and Srinagar was so favourable so that A/c buses are not needed. Since the opposite parties assured A/c buses for travel they are bound to provide the same and so the said contention of the opposite parties are not admissible. The opposite parties have to arrange more buses for the comfortable journey also. The irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties in this regard causi9ng much discomfort to the travelers is another deficiency in service on their side. The petitioners also alleged that the opposite parties have not appointed any guide to monitor their sightseeing trips and so they could not visit many important places as given in Ext. A2 itinerary. Though the opposite parties claimed that they had appointed a well experienced guide to monitor the trip and he had taken the tourists to all the places as promised, they have not stated the name of the guide whom they had appointed to assist the tourists and thus failed to prove their said contention.

The opposite parties have a case that, no complaint was made by the petitioners during the tour to any authority regarding any deficiency in service on their side. Without making any complaint at the right time the petitioners are not entitled to make baseless allegations later. But the said contention of the opposite parties was disproved by Ext. A3. Ext. A3 is the complaint dated 21/05/2014 made by 28 passengers in that tour package including the petitioners before the Manager, Tourism, IRCTC Ernakulam wherein all the difficulties and inconveniences suffered during the journey were narrated by the complainants. Thus Ext. A3 proved that the petitioners had made complaint before the authority at the first minute of their return. In cross RW1 also admitted the lodging of Ext. A3 complaint. RW1 also deposed that “No enquiry was conducted in pursuant to Ext. A3”(page 3 RW1). The said statement of RW1 shows the callous negligence and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties towards a complaint made before them. If the opposite parties had conducted an enquiry on that complaint and resolved their grievances, then the petitioners would not have come before us for a relief. Sri. Priju K.P., the 4^th petitioner in this case filed proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of the other petitioners. He was examined as PW1. He deposed in lieu of his affidavit and reiterated their sufferings throughout the tour programme in cross examination. Though the opposite parties had denied all the allegations of the petitioners as false and baseless, they have not adduced any evidence to prove that they had provided all the facilities to the travelers as per their itinerary Ext. A2.

            So considering the facts stated and evidence on record, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing the offered facilities to the petitioners participated in that tour package which caused much troubles to the petitioners. So the petitioners are entitled to get adequate reliefs.

            It is true that the opposite parties suo-moto had refunded some amounts to each of the participants to a total amount of Rs.62,369/- as per Ext. A4, for the inconveniences caused to them due to the delay at Delhi Station. But according to them the refund was made not to compensate the petitioners for any laches or deficiency in service on their part but only as a customer oriented hospitality service. Anyway so much, so good. But in our view the amount refunded is not adequate to compensate the actual inconveniences and other hardships suffered by the petitioners in that trip. Point No. 2 found accordingly.

Point No. 3: In view of the finding in Point No. 2, this petition is to be allowed and the petitioners are entitled to get reasonable reliefs.

In the result, the following order is passed.

The opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, to the petitioners as compensation for their sufferings and a total amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation charges within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the whole amount will carry 7% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2019

Date of filing: 18/07/2014

                           SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of brochure

A2. Copy of itinerary

A3. Copy of complaint before 2^nd opposite party

A4. Copy of Annexure – IV (Refund details)

A5. Receipt No. 03032 dated 24/04/2014

A6. Letter received from 2^nd opposite party

A7. Copy of version submitted before Ernakulam CDRF

A8. Copy of Invoice No. 000015

A9. Details of accommodation provided

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Priju K.P. (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

RW1. Thiagarajan IRCTC, Chetpet, Chennai 31.                                                                

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT