The facts of the complaint are that the opposite party gave an advertisement in ‘Ananda Bazar Patrika’ for conducting tour in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the month of Sept, 2017. The tour programme was supposed to start on 27.09.2017 from Howrah station and to end on 13.10.2017 at Howrah and total cost was Rs.40,170/- (Rupees forty thousand one hundred seventy) only for two heads.
The complainants paid Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as advance on 15.05.2017 and the rest amount of Rs.35,170/- (Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred seventy) only by cheque no.459364 dated 11.09.2017 drawn on S. B. I. Bank.
The complainants intended to visit other places so they wanted to end their tour programme on 12.10.2017 at Gwalior.
It is the further case of the complainants that as per tour programme/itinerary they reached Indore in the night of 08.10.2017 and supposed to spend two nights at Hotel ‘Uday Palace’ and to leave for Gwalior at 11 A.M. on 10.10.2017. The tour manager on the night of 09.10.2017 informed them that lunch will be served in the hotel rooms around 10 A.M. on 10.10.2017. So, the complainants were waiting in their hotel room on 10.10.2017 till 10.30 A.M. When no lunch was served, the complainants on enquiring from the Reception Counter of the hotel, came to know that the tourist party left the hotel. Immediately the complainants contacted the Kolkata office of the opposite party no. 1 but to no effect. As the complainants purchased ticket for themselves they wanted to board the train to go to Gwalior. At the time of leaving hotel, the employee of the hotel demanded hotel charges for two days as the opposite parties have not paid the same. However, after much request the employee of the hotel agreed to accept one day’s charge of the hotel room. The complainants were compelled to pay Rs.990/- (Rupees nine hundred ninety) only to the hotel inspite of making full payment of the tour charges which are inclusive of accommodation. However, when they reached Gwalior at about 12.30 AM midnight on 11.10.2017, no body of the opposite parties received them. The complainants were compelled to book a room at hotel Shri Krishna at Gwalior at 2.40 AM on 11.10.2017 for two days @ Rs.800/- (Rupees eight hundred) only per day and made payment of Rs.1,600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred) only to the Hotel. The complainants also hired a car @ Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for a day tour at Gwalior. After completion of tour the complainants contacted the opposite parties to compensate them for such harassment. Inspite of promise to compensate, the opposite parties have not compensated and ultimately the complainants send a demand notice on 20.09.2019 through the Ld. Advocate. The complainants allege that the opposite parties are liable for their harassment and deficiency of service. Hence this case.
Points for decision:-
- Is the case maintainable in law and in its present form ?
- Is the case is barred by limitation ?
- Has this commission jurisdiction to try the case ?
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged ?
- Are the complainants entitled to any relief as claimed for ?
Decision with reasons
The complainant no.1 filed affidavit in chief in this case. The opposite party appeared and filed written version on 17.01.2020. But since 23.09.2020 the opposite party has not taken any steps in the case. Though several dates were fixed for cross examination of the complainants by filing questionnaire but the opposite party has not deliberately filed the same. Thereafter dates were fixed for submission of affidavit in chief by opposite party but the opposite party has not availed such opportunity.
Thereafter the case has been fixed for ex-party hearing.
Point nos. 1, 2 and 3
For the sake of brevity and consideration all the three points are taken up together for discussion.
From the facts mentioned in the complaint and evidence submitted on affidavit, it is crystal clear that the complainants are consumers in terms of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
It is the case of the complainants that the deficiency of service caused by the opposite parties in the night of 08.10.2017 and the instant case has been filed on 01.10.2019. Therefore, the case is not barred by limitation in terms of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
From the materials on record, we find that this commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case.
Therefore, all three above points are decided in favour of the complainants.
Point nos. 4 and 5
Both the points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
The complainant no.1 by submitting his affidavit in chief proved the invoice dated 11.09.2017 of the opposite party (Ext-1) which reveals that the complainant no.2 paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only in total out of which five thousand in cash and the rest amount of Rs.35,170/- (Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred seventy) only by cheque no.459364 dated 11.09.2017 drawn on S. B. I.and the date of commencement of journey was 27.09.2017 by Mumbai Mail, Train no. 12810, Howrah and to be ended at Gwalior on 12.10.2017 morning. The complainant also submitted documentary evidence Ext-2 and Ext-3 showing payment of hotel bills at Indore and Gwalior for the dates included in the Tour programme. Ext-4, Ext-4(a) and Ext-4(b) are the demand letters dated 20.09.2019, by the complainants through his advocate and postal receipts and track reports.
The entire evidence of the complainants remained unchallanged and un-rebutted. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants have been able to prove their case by unchallenged and un-rebutted evidence. It is crystal clear from the evidence of the complainants that inspite of full payment for the tour package of Madhya Pradesh, the complainants had to spend money for their stay at Indore and Gwalior. That too, no assistance were provided by the opposite party to the complainants at Indore and Gwalior. The complainants had to visit all tour spots at their own expenses. Many people on payment, under take tour with professionals in order to avoid hazards, anxiety etc. and for convenient tour. Inspite of full payment to the opposite party for such tour in Madhya Pradesh, the complainants suffered hazards and anxiety in unknown and unfamiliar places even at midnight in Indore and Gwalior as no accommodation and assistance provided by the opposite party. Moreover, at the time of leaving hotel ‘Uday Palace’ at Indore, the tour manager did not bother to take cognizance that two of the tour members i.e. the complainants had not checked out of the hotel or joined him. Such conduct is certainly an act of deliberate negligence for not providing proper service to the complainants who paid for the tour prior to its commencement.
Having regard to the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable for deficiency in service.
Therefore, point nos. 4 and 5 are decided in favour of the complainants.
So, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte with cost against the opposite party.
The opposite party shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation to the complainants within two months for the date hereof failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization.
The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as litigation cost within two months for the date hereof failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization.
The judgment is kept with the record.
Let a free copy of judgment be supplied to the complainant.
