IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

 Monday the 30^th day of September, 2024

Filed on: 30.10.2023

Present

1. Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB  (President in Charge )
2. Smt.  C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)

In

CC/No. 331/2023

       between

ORDER

SMT.SHOLY P.R.(PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)

Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019

1. Material averments briefly discussed as follows:-

The complainant being a retired senior citizen having a long cherished desire to have a pilgrim to CHARDAM, i.e.,Gangotri, Yamunothri, Badrinath and Kedar Nath temples.  While he noticed an advertisement given by the opposite party who is a tour and pilgrim operator whereas the complainant entered into an agreement to participate in Chardam Yatra conducted by the opposite party during 1^st to 18^th October 2023.  The travel expense charged for the pilgrim was Rs.36,000/- from Haridwar.  The complainant has to reach Haridwar by his own expenses.  He reached there by flight from Kochi to Dehradun and by taxi to Haridwar on 03/10/2023. 

2. The journey to Kedarnath Temple was scheduled to be by Helicopter.  For that the complainant paid additional Rs.13,000/- on 23/06/2023 as per the opposite party’s demand.  On reaching Uttarakhand the opposite party demanded additional 4,500/- for Helicopter ticket for Kedarnath yatra.  The petitioner was ready to give the amount since he had reached there by spending morethan Rs.60,000/- and 14 days and loss of income from SBI KIOSK Banking also that he engaged but the opposite party denied the journey to Kedarnath Temple by Helicopter to about 11 pilgrims including the petitioner for the reasons best known to them alone.  The other members of the pilgrim group were given Helicopter tickets to Kedarnath Temple by purchasing from unauthorized agents on exorbitant rates at their own choice.  The opposite party arranged these tickets only after reaching Uttarkashi/Phatta.

3. The journey ticket to Kedarnath Temple by Helicopter was really issued by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, IRCTC well in advance by booking through their website online.  The ticket charges for the journey to Kedarnath Temple by Helicopter through IRCTC site is only Rs.5,854/- against which he collected Rs.13,000/- from the complainant.  Further the opposite party demanded to pay Rs.4,500/- extra if the complainant wanted to undertake the journey.  The complainant was ready to pay the whole amount demanded by the opposite party still he could not arrange the ticket for the journey.

4. On enquiry it is revealed to the complainant that the opposite party had not booked tickets through IRCTC for the journey to Kedarnath temple by Helicopter even though they had received Rs.13,000/- instead of Rs.5,854/- fixed and charged by IRCTC.

5. Whereas the complainant asked about the deficiency of services, the son of  opposite party Shri.Saravanan returned Rs.13,000/- through google pay and behaved in highly dirty manner by uttering filthy words at the face of the complainant in front of other pilgrims, not considering the complainant as a senior citizen.  By not booking the tickets in the normal procedure through IRCTC, the opposite party cheated the complainant who trusted him and paid the whole amount four months in advance as demanded by the tour operator.

6. If the complainant has to fulfil his desire for “Darshan” in Kedarnath Temple, again he has to spend more than Rs.60,000/- and 14 days and also loss of income for those days.  This was happened only due to the deficiency of service and willful negligence by the opposite party.  They ought to have booked the ticket in right time through IRCTC for which he had collected the amount well in advance i.e., on 23/06/2023.

7. Denial of journey to Kedarnath Temple by Helicopter will amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, hence filed this complaint for allowing compensation of Rs.1.60 lakhs from opposite party under different heads.

8. Opposite party filed version mainly contenting as follows:-

The above complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

9. The complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act warranting adjudication by this Commission.  There is no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged.  The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.  He has suppressed the true, correct and material facts and has set out incorrect, unsustainable and misleading allegations and claims, which as well disentitles him from claiming or getting any relief from this Commission.  The attempt appears to be to make unjust enrichment at our expense, that too by making false, baseless and frivolous allegations.

10. The complainant booked for the travel after getting fully convinced and agreeing to the terms and conditions specified in the brochure in which it has been clearly stated that the pilgrims should take their conveyance expenses on their own to Haridwar.

11. The opposite party has never assured that the pilgrims shall be taken to Kedernath by helicopter service alone.  In the brochure, it has been clearly stated that the travel to Kedarnath may be either by walk, horses or helicopter.  The opposite party relies on private agencies for helicopter service.  The number of pilgrims who can be taken in a helicopter depends on the terms and conditions as well as facility provided by the agency, their availability, climate during the relevant time etc.  If any climate change occurred or unavailability of tickets occurred from the part of the agency, it is not possible to take the pilgrims by helicopter.  In such a situation, the only option available is to select other modes of travelling as mentioned in the brochure.  The opposite party has never agreed that they shall strictly provide helicopter facilities to its pilgrims for visiting Kedarnath Temple.  

12. Though the complainant along with 48 other pilgrims sought helicopter service to Kedarnath and paid the amount, only 11 pilgrims including the complainant could not be provided with the same due to the inability occurred at that time, from the part of the helicopter service agency owing to unfavourable climatic change due to sudden rain.  All others were able to be provided with helicopter facility and that too with the help of different helicopter service agencies.  Sudden change in climatic conditions and consequent inability from the part of the helicopter service agency in providing the service which are beyond the control of this opposite party, those 11 pilgrims could not avail helicopter facility.  Though the opposite party tried to approach other agencies to provide helicopter facility to the petitioner the same was not available due to the aforementioned reasons.  Hence the opposite party duly informed the said fact to the complainant and other pilgrims and immediately refunded the amount paid by the complainant as well as other pilgrims who could not avail helicopter facility and arranged other modes of travelling such as ‘pallak’ facility to all those 11 persons at the expense of the opposite party and only 2 persons including the complainant decided not to use ‘pallak’ facility provided by the opposite party.  All other 9 pilgrims visited Kedarnath temple using the pallak facility

13. The complainant received the amount refunded by this opposite party without any objection and happily completed his pilgrimage and also expressed his gratitude when he returned home, after the pilgrimage.

14. The averment that the complainant reached there by spending more than Rs.60,000/- and 14 days and loss of income from SBI KIOSK Banking are beyond the knowledge of the opposite party and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The allegation that other members of the pilgrim were given helicopter tickets to Kedarnath Temple by purchasing from unauthorized agents at exorbitant rates is false.

15. The averment that the journey ticket to Kedarnath Temple by helicopter was really issued by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation in advance by booking through their website and that the ticket charges for the journey to Kedarnath through IRCTC is only Rs.5,845/- and that against the same, the opposite party collected Rs.13,000/- from the complainant is false and incorrect.  The opposite party has not agreed or promised to book tickets from IRCTC.  As the opposite party relies on private agency for helicopter service, its is the charge demanded by the agency that the opposite party collects from its travelers and the complainant is well aware of the said fact. The opposite party did not demanded extra charges.

16. The allegation that the son of the opposite party Shri.Sharavanan behaved in highly dirty manner by uttering filthy words at the face of the complainant in front of the pilgrims, not considering the complainant as a senior citizen is absolutely false.

17. The complainant denied the other facilities provided by the opposite party, for Kedarnath Temple visit who ignored the other facilities available and after receiving the amount refunded by this opposite party without any objection, despite the fact that the opposite party has never agreed to take the complainant to Kedarnath Temple only by helicopter.

18. Complaint is the result of an afterthought of the complainant, in order to make unlawful gains from this opposite party.

19. On the above pleadings points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief for in the complaint?

3.Reliefs and costs?

20. Evidence in this case consist of oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 from the side of complainant and oral evidence of R1, and Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of opposite party Counsel for opposite party filed notes of agreement.  Heard complainant.

21. Point No.1 and 2

 PW1 is the complainant in this case.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A9

22. RW1 is the opposite party and he filed an affidavit in lieu of the version and get marked Exts.B1 and B2.  During cross-examination by the counsel appearing for the complainant Ext.A10 marked.

23. PW1’s case is that in the agreement of Chardam pilgrim, though the opposite party offered the journey to Kedarnath Temple via Helicopter, it was not provided to him for which he suffered much hardship and loss of money and subsequent mental struggle due to non-completion of his pilgrim as scheduled.  The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party did not booked the ticket for Helicopter journey through online service of IRCTC and hence the opposite party could not provide the said facility to the complainant.

24. On the other hand, the opposite party contented that he never offered a conveyance via helicopter.  Opposite party further contented that due to the climatic situation he could not provide the helicopter journey to the complainant and for which the journey provided through “pallak” was denied by the complainant.

25. The main dispute between the complainant and opposite party was with regard to the mode of conveyance from Uttarakhand to Kedarnath.  It is alleged by the complainant is that through Helicopter, despite that the opposite party contented that he never offered a journey through Helicopter.  In Ext.A1 (same of Ext.B1), the chart of travel for 18 days package shows in the bottom “Package-36000/- + Train/Flight”. In the brochure published by the opposite party, ie., Exts.A9 also reveals a flight journey to the package to Chardam pilgrim.  As per Ext.A2 the PW1 had paid an amount of Rs.13,000/- in addition to advance amount of Rs.3,000/- on 23/06/2023 to the opposite party for helicopter ticket which specifically mentioned in the document.  Ext.A10 also corroborates the willingness of the PW1 for booking of Helicopter ticket for an expense of Rs.17,500/-.

26. Though the opposite party alleged a climate situation for not providing helicopter trip, it is negatived by Ext.A7 in which they provided Helicopter ticket for the persons who were enlisted in their pilgrim chart to Chardam.  Though the opposite party denied the matter of booking of AIR ticket through IRCTC, it is found in Ext.A7 that the service provider is IRCTC. More particularly the complainant could not fulfilled his ambition of Chardham Pilgrim and hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the same for which we limit the compensation for Rs.10,000/-. These points are answered accordingly.

27. Point No.3

In the result complaint stands allowed in part.

A.Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant being the compensation within one month of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

B.The complainant is entitled an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost of proceedings from the opposite party.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission this the   30^th day of September, 2024.

                                                   Sd/- Smt.P.R Sholy (President-In-Charge)

                                           Sd/- Smt,C.K.Lekhamma.(Member)                                                      

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

Pw1                          -          Muraleedharan Nair (Complainant)

Ext.A1                       -           Brochure issued by opposite party

Ext.A2                       -           Payment details for Helicopter ticket

Ext.A3                       -           Copy of IRCTC Instructions

Ext.A4                       -           Copy of Flight ticket from Kochi to Bangalore

Ext.A5                       -           Copy of Flight ticket from New Delhi to Kochi

Ext.A6                      -           Copy of Train ticket from Haridwar to New Delhi

Ext.A7                      -          Helicopter passenger list

Ext.A8                      -          Passenger list of Chardham Yatra (Oct 1-18)

Ext.A9                      -          Brochure

Ext. A10                   -          Message details for willingness for booking Helicopter ticket

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

Rw1                          -           K.G.V.Bala Dhandapani (Opposite party)

Ext.B1                      -           Brochure issued by opposite party

Ext.B2                      -           google pay refund details

// True Copy //

To        

            Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                                            By Order

                                                                                                                         Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-