Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/538/2014

Ramesh G Morab. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Pancard Clubs Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Sakri.

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 11^th day of April 2017

Complaint No. 538/2014

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

Complainant/s:          Sri.Ramesh Gopalrao Morab,

Age:about 42 years, Occ: Advocate,

R/o.244/146, Fulbag Galli,

 Belagavi.

 

(By Sri.S.R.Sakri, Advocate)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:      1.      The Managing Director,

Pancard Clubs Ltd.,

111-113, Kallandas Udyog Bhavan,

Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai 500025.

 

2.      The Manager,

Pancard Clubs Ltd.,

II Floor, City Arcade,

Ramlingkhind Galli, Belagavi.

 

3.      Sri.Siddeshwar Khadali,

Incharge Official Belgaum Branch,

Pancard Clubs Ltd.,

II Floor, City Arcade,

Ramlingkhind Galli, Belagavi.

 

(OP-1 exparte, OP.2&3 By Sri.K.R.Shah, Advocate)

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

 

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in conducting tour service by the OPs.

          2) Inspite of issuance of notice from the forum the O.P.1 remained absent, hence placed exparte. OP.2 & 3 appeared through their counsel & filed their separate written version, affidavit and produced some documents.

           3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents.  

4) We have also heard on both sides and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in partly affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complaint and affidavit of complainant, the complainant & his spouse are ardent members of OPs club. The OP.3 chalked out program & quoted Rs.1,69,200/- towards the package for 3 couples & 5 kids & assured enjoyment for 8 days and 7 nights MAPAI confirming 2 night stay at Katra, 1 stay at Shrinagar (Houseboat), 2 night stay at pahalgam & 2 night stay at Shrinagar and Shikara ride for 3 hours and tempo traveler from Jammu pickup to Jammu drop including breakfast, dinner & other amenities. The complainant was convinced by OP.2&3 that kids would be provided breakfast, dinner & each traveler would be provided 1 bottle mineral water per day. The room booking confirmation voucher was provided under S.No.001196 on 20.03.2014 and complainant was asked to pay Rs.1,90,200/- assuring that the amount would be refunded, adjusted in case of additional facilities provided. The complainant and his friends landed at Jammu Tavi but, there was no pickup tempo. The OPs had provided Mr.Malik who has been designated as out contact person, had shed away from the responsibilities who has asked the complainant to drive out of station to reach him about 1 km., from station. The complainant and others were dropped at Hotel Devi Mahala at Katra, wherein there was no breakfast provided, but were charged for petty items. The tour manger was scheduled to meet on 13.04.2014, but he never visited on that day. The complainant and others had on their own proceeded for Mata Darshan on 13.04.2014 wherein no facilities were provided by OPs. The Hotel collected Rs.2600/- from complainant towards dinner arguing that it was not inclusive in the package. The complainant also has to pay Rs.2459/- at Jammu. Further the complainant submits that complainant and his colleagues were dropped at one Hamdan Cottage at Pehalgam where there were no good facilities and there the complainant had to pay Rs.1,380/-. Further, the stop at Shrinagar was enjoyed with restriction, but was deprived of 3 hours of shikara ride. The housing at Saha Abbas on 18^th and 19^th  April 2014 had also not seen any traces of Mr.Malik & rooms were lodged at 4^th floor. This fact was intimated to OP.3 who had assured that the arrangements would be provided, but not provided. Hence the tour party had to hire local guides for their sundries. The complainant further submits that at Sonamarg he had to shed out another Rs.5000/- for hiring taxi. Therefore the complainant on reaching Belagavi had got issued legal notice to OPs on 07.05.2014 which was duly served on OPs. For that the OPs replied falsely and demanded Rs.25000/- from complainant as replies. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs. 

8)      The  OP.2 filed written version denying and disputing the complaint averments and contended that, the complaint as filed is not maintainable as the complainant has not impleaded other tour members as parties to the proceedings. The complainant being an advocate has filed this complaint with ill motive. The complainant was provided with all relevant information with regard to customized tour. After having understood the contents of the customized tour program the pricing and other terms and conditions of travel agreed to book the customized tour and confirmed vide information of usage of room nights dt.10.03.2014 and vide confirmation voucher dt.20.03.2014. The OP further contended that the complainant was bound by standard terms and conditions of customized tour package. The amount paid by the complainant is not RD scheme but the said amounts were paid for obtaining room nights at various hotels/resorts of M/s.Pancard Clubs Ltd., or its affiliates. The complainant being desirous of visiting Jammu & Kashmir approached the OPs to opt a customized tour package by surrendering the room nights which were obtained by the complainant. The OPs never offered the complainant for Shikara ride of 3 hours and other services like breakfast, dinner & other amenities. The OP.2 further contended that it is not convinced anything to the complainant which is not included in the confirmation voucher. The OP.2 either verbally or in writing agreed to provide guide for complainant throughout the tour. The OP.2 has made necessary package as per complainant’s requirements. After confirming the entire package complainant demanded for additional night stay in Katra, hence the OPs considered the additional demand of the complainant vide confirmation voucher dt.09.04.2014, hence cost of the tour extended to Rs.1,90,600/- from Rs.1,72,200/-. This fact can also be seen from the confirmation voucher and intimation of usage of room nights stated above. The OPs never assured the complainant directly or indirectly that additional amount charged would be refunded, adjusted in case of additional facilities. The OP further states that it has provided car to the complainant and tour party, the said car was used by them to reach to the foothills of Vishno Devi hills, as the car cannot go beyond the foot hills. The complainant cannot blame the OPs as Darshan was not offered or included in the tour package. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

9)      The OP.3 has filed his written version in the same lines as OP.2 filed and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

10)    On perusal of complaint averments, objections and documents there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the OPs have conducted the tour program and the complainant and his wife being members of the OPs club have opted to go tour program along with other family members and accordingly paid the requisite amount to OPs as per the confirmation voucher under S.No.001196 dt.20.03.2014. The main contention of the complainant is that, as per the tour package confirmation agreement the OPs have failed to provide food, accommodation, tourist guide and traveling assistance etc., hence the complainants have suffered and their tour program was not comfortable and complainant has to pay extra amount unnecessarily. On the other hand the OPs have contended that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs because they have rendered all the services as agreed by them and they never assured about the additional facilities which were not in the confirmation voucher.

11)    On  perusal of contents of complaint & affidavit of complainant & others, except their self serving statement they have not produced any documents to show the terms and conditions of the tour package.

12)    The advocate for complainant has relied on the decisions reported in II (2015) CPJ 319 (NC) between Rajendra Singh vs Thomas Cook (I) Ltd., & others, I (2008) CPJ 288 (NC) in between Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd., & Jitubhai Gandhi & others wherein it is held that ;

“CP Act 1986 – Sec.2(1) (g), 14 (1) (d), 21(b) – Tours and Travels – Tour package – Promised facilities not provided – Alleged deficiency of service – DF dismissed the complaint – State Commission partly allowed appeal – Hence revision – OPs did not provide accommodation as per itinerary, but made provision in other hotels as an alternative – OPs have not placed any record to prove that tariffs & facilities were same at alternative hotels – OPs approach was not prudent - deficiency of service proved – Lum sum complainant Rs.25000/- granted”

 

13)    The decisions relied on by the advocate for complainant are applicable to the case on hand. The allegation of the complainant is that their tour was not properly organized & they had suffered a great deal, the amount paid by them was full & final for total expenses for package tour to places mentioned in confirmation voucher but tour program was not conducted properly & facilities were not provided as stated by the OPs.

14)    The complainant has claimed extra amount from OPs & also claimed complainant Rs.1,90,020/- & 7 lakhs. However the OPs shown the places mentioned in the confirmation voucher. The OPs did not provided extra facilities to the complainant & their family members. The complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed in the complaint. Hence if an amount of Rs.15000/- is awarded as compensation it will meet the ends of justice.

          15) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

16)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The OPs.1 to 3 as shown in the cause title are jointly & severally hereby directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

Further the OPs.1 to 3 as shown in the cause title jointly & severally are hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.

The award shall be complied within 30 days from today.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 11^th day of April 2017)

 

 

 

MSR