Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/133/2013

K.Ravi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thomas Cook India Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sivakumar

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 18.04.2013

Date of Reservation      : 25.07.2022

Date of Order               : 25.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.133 /2013

THURSDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

K.Ravi,

S/o. G.Kumar,

No.1-A, N th  Street,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.                                              ... Complainant                                

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Thomas Cook India Ltd,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   Thomas Cook Building,

   Dr.D.N Road,

   Mumbai.

 

2.M/s. Thomas Cook India Ltd,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   G-17A, & G17B, Phase-I,

   Spencer Plaza,

   769, Anna Salai,

   Chennai – 600 002.                                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. B.Sivakumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. Menon

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,          

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay the sum of Rs.61,000/- and USD 1200 at the prevailing market rate with interest @12% p.a from 12.05.2011 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant was desirous of spending the summer vacation of May, 2011 by travelling abroad. He came to know about the Far East Super Budge Package of the opposite parties and booked travel package for himself and his wife through the 2nd Opposite Party. The opposite parties have undertaken to arrange everything including getting visa. The charges for the travel package was to be paid as Rs.61,000/- in Indian Rupees and USD 1200 in U.S. Dollars. As required by the opposite parties the Complainant paid the necessary charges of Rs.61,000/- in terms of Indian Money and provided all the document required by the opposite parties on 9.4.2011, 33 days in advance for the schedule date of departure i.e. 12.5.2011. The opposite parties being travel agents have undertaken to provide every thing required for the travel scheduled for 12.5.2011 and have received the money as on 9.4.2011 and were expected to discharge their duty for which they are paid. The travel was a leisure and the Complainant expected to spend the holiday joyfully with his wife and have a good time to relieve himself and his wife of the hasstle and tensioned of their work. The Complainant purchased 500 USD for himself and USD 500 for his wife for use during the travel. The respondent further compelled the Complainant to purchase USD 1200 as per the prevailing Exchange rates and the Complainant gave the same to the Opposite parties. When asked about the logic of buying USD just to be given to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was told that it is the procedure. The package involved travelling to Thailand, Malasia and Singapore. The opposite parties were supposed to and were paid for obtaining the travel documents for the travel. As per the endorsement on the passport it is evident that the visa on Malaysia was issued on 4.5.2011, Singapore was issued on 4.5.2011 and Thailand was issued on 12.5.2011. The opposite parties are responsible for obtaining the above documents and they are supposed and obliged to synchronize it so as to get the Complainant air borne in time without any problem. As per the travel advisory issued by the opposite parties the Complainant was directed to be present at the airport at least 3 to 3½ hours before the time of departure. The reason given there under is that inspite of having confirmed booking, during peak season the Airlines may offload passengers in case they have overbooked their flights or in case the passengers do not report at the check-in counter on time. Having issued such an advisory the opposite parties ought to be aware of the perils of arriving late for boarding. The travel documents were not delivered to him until 12.5.2011. However it was assured by the opposite parties that the documents will be delivered at the airport. The Complainant along with his wife reached the airport by 5.30 PM on 12.5.2011 for the scheduled departure of the Srilankan Airline at 21.15. None of the opposite parties were present at the Airport and there was no message or news of the passport and travel documents. The departure of the Srilankan airlines flight scheduled to carry the Complainant was announced and after the final cell the security gates were closed. The agent of the opposite parties arrived at the airport only 15 minutes before the schedule departure time of 21.15. The Complainant had called the opposite parties countless number of time during his wait at the airport but no one responded to him. When enquired about the delayed delivery of the travel document the person who delivered the same was equally un co operative. After receiving the travel documents and tickets the Complainant and his wife had to jump the gates, plead with the security personnel, skip ques, inconvenience self and others to reach the baggage counter of the Srilankan Airlines only to find the counter already closed. The Complainant had to beg with the Manager of Srilankar Airlines for the issue of the Boarding Pass which he denied. The Complainant was a object of ridicule with others at the airport premises laughing at him beg for a boarding pass. Eventually after much impelling the Manager directed his officers to issue a boarding pass. The Board Pass was issued at 21.15 the time for departure of the flight. He had to get emigration clearance for which he had to run again to another part of the Airport, while rushing to the Emigration counter the Complainant slipped and hurt himself. With one leg crippled the Complainant suffered unspeakable pain. He was helped by the people at the Airport. This was to follow him for the rest of the Journey. His disability, his fall and his inability to walk without support helped him to earn the sympathy of other passengers at the airport and consequently he was able to jump the queue at the Emigration counter. Due to the fall at the Airport for which the opposite parties are responsible, the Complainant developed painful swelling. He suffered pain unbearable and even the flight attendants tried to alleviate his pain with pain killers. Nothing helped. His pain increased and swelling increased. The Complainant disembarked at the Bankok Airport with pain and swollen leg. To add insult to injury on arrival at Bankok Airport the Complainant and his wife were made to wait for more than 3 hours. It is the responsibility of the opposite parties to co-ordinate the tour property and the Complainant who was suffering from pain and swollen leg had to put up with the opposite parties irresponsibility and wait at the Airport. The Complainant had lost all the interest in the trip which was bungled up by the opposite parties.  he paid Rs.61,000/- and USD 1200 for the tour package. The opposite parties who are tour operators had used that part of their business to enrich their other business of Money Changing. They sold USD 1200 just to be taken back. The opposite parties could have got money in term of INR but deliberately made the Complainant to pay for commission, Exchange rate and other hidden costs. This is unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, further the opposite parties are obligated to explain why the Complainant was compelled to purchase USD 1200 in India just to be given back in India. Why transaction is USD should take place in India?. The Complainant submits that the Opposite parties have unlawfully and illegally enriched themselves by the above transaction. as a result of the injury suffered by him and because of the callousness of the opposite parties, the Complainant could not visit places. With a painfully swollen leg he spent most of the time at the hotel and his wife took care of him. The purpose of the journey was lost. The Complainant had paid a huge sum of money only for the pain and an attitude despicable from the opposite parties. The disservice rendered by the opposite parties is deficiency in service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. immediately upon his return from the nightmarish journey which he considers best forgotten, called upon the opposite parties and reported the great disservice rendered by them and the nightmare of a Far East Trip he had, only to be bullied and dismissed in a most unfriendly manner. Whereupon he demanded the refund of the cost he paid for the trip. As it is their habit the Opposite Parties did not make any reply and on the Complainant's visiting the 2nd Opposite Party's office several time a staff named Parvathy Krishanand, Service quality and customer care, sent on 'e-mail' dated 27.7.2011 to the Complainant at kumar.ravi@tcs.com accepting the bungling on their side and while empathizing with the Complainant offered a discount voucher for Rs.10,000/- for future use. The Complainant caused a legal notice calling upon the respondent to refund the cost of travel and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. While accepting the averments there under the opposite parties replied that they are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence the complaint. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

      The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and made a booking for his intended travel, with his wife, Mrs. Lakshmi on Thomas Cook's "Superfast Budget Far East Tour scheduled for 13.5.2011. The terms and conditions between the parties are governed by the Terms and Conditions printed on the reverse of the Booking Form dated 9.4.2011, which may be treated as part and parcel of this Written Version. Though the Complainant has filed a copy of the Booking Form, he has conveniently omitted to file the terms and conditions set out on the reverse.  As per the said Booking Form, the tour cost to be paid by the Complainant for two persons was Rs.61,000/- plus USD 1200/- On 9.4.2011, at the time of booking, the Complainant only paid an advance of Rs 50,000/-, that is, Rs 25,000/- towards each passenger. The balance amount of Rs. 11000/- and USD 1200/- was paid to the Opposite Party subsequently. the Terms and Conditions of the Booking Form clearly states that Thomas Cook India Ltd, the Opposite Party is a travel agent and holiday organizer. The role of the company is that of an agent of the Complainant to secure proper services for the tour from independent contractors and service providers. In respect of assistance in obtaining visa from consulate offices of foreign countries, it is submitted that the issue of a visa is a sovereign function of that country and the Opposite Parties have no influence over their functioning. Any delay by the consular offices in issuing the visa is not actionable. Needless to state, the Opposite Party cannot be mulcted with any liability for any delay on the part of the consulate. The Thailand Consulate at Chennai issued the Visa only on 12.5.2011, and the passports were handed over to the Complainant at the airport on 12.5.2011 before the departure of the Srilankan Airlines flight, which was scheduled to leave at 9.15 p.m. Admittedly, the said airlines had also issued the Boarding Pass and the Complainant has also subsequently boarded the flight. Hence there cannot be any fault or liability on the Opposite Parties. Once Srilankan Airlines had issued the Complainant a boarding pass, which is a legal document by virtue of which the Complainant was entitled to board the plane, and it would be the said airlines responsibility to ensure that its passengers' convenience and safety. The Opposite Parties cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever for any act or omission on the part of the said airlines, thereafter. the alleged problems encountered by the Complainant at the airport in boarding the Srilankan Airlines flight to Colombo are beyond control of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for the same. In any case, to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties no action has been initiated by the Complainant against M/s. Srilankan Airlines nor has it been impleaded as a party to these proceedings. It is further submitted that the Mr. Niran, the representative of the Opposite Parties had been in constant touch with the Complainant ever since the booking was made and on the travel date of 12.5.2011 he was always with the Complainant in the airport and had personally handed over the passports, other travel documents and tickets to the Complainant. In fact, as a matter of courtesy Mr. Niran personally assisted the Complainant in obtaining the boarding pass, then pass through the security check and finally board the aircraft. Further, after boarding the flight, the Complainant had also called up Mr. Niran and confirmed that all things were fine. These facts have been conveniently suppressed by the Complainant. The alleged difficulties faced by the Complainant are highly exaggerated and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The Complainant undertook the tour as planned and did not raise any issues with respect to any aspect of the arrangements made during the tour, at the relevant point in time and in fact raised some issues only in his email dated 23.6.2011 which was responded to by the Opposite Parties' Service Quality and Customer Executive, wherein it was clearly pointed out that the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for actions of third parties and purely as gesture of goodwill, without admitting any liability, a Discount Voucher for Rs.10,000/- was offered to the Complainant, which offer was refused by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant on 30.01.2012 caused the issue of a legal notice addressed to the 1" Opposite Party making these untenable allegations. The same was replied by the Opposite Parties" counsel by reply notice dated 21.02.2012 It is pertinent to point out that no allegations were made till that point of time with regard to sale of foreign exchange of USD 1200. Now for the first time in the complaint, as an afterthought, such allegations have been made for collateral objects. There is no deficient or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties as alleged. On the contrary, it is the Complainant who has come to this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. It is relevant, that in the legal notice dated 30.01.2012, the Complainant had claimed only a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, but in this complaint it has been enhanced to Rs 10 lakhs without any reason There is no nexus between the alleged injury and the compensation claimed Without prejudice to the generality of the aforesaid averments, the Opposite Parties now proceed to deal with the allegations in the Complaint paragraph-wise. The allegation that the Opposite Parties compelled the Complainant to purchase USD 1200 as per the prevailing exchange rates and the Complainant gave the same to the Opposite Patties and when asked about the logic of buying USD just to be given to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was told that it was the procedure is denied as baseless and unsubstantiated. It is submitted that this alleged grievance is a clear after thought and has been raised belatedly in this Complaint for the first time only to prejudice this Hon'ble Forum against the Opposite Parries. Admittedly, the cost of the tour was Rs.61,000/- plus USD 1200/-. While the Opposite Parties can receive Rs 61,000/- as Indian Currency, the balance amount has to be made in US Dollars only. Since, the Complainant did not have US Dollars for that amount, the Complainant had purchased the same from the Opposite Parties, who is also an authorized foreign exchange dealer and made the payment to the 2^nd Opposite Party. It was open to the Complainant to purchase the same from any other authorized foreign exchange dealer and make the payment of USD 1200 to the 2nd Opposite Party. However, the Complainant chose to purchase it from the 20 Opposite Party itself. This was clearly explained to the Complainant at the relevant point in time and the Complainant has not raised any dispute in this regard till raising it in this complaint. The Complainant has admitted that he had purchased the same at the prevailing exchange rate and therefore could not have been put to any loss or damage or inconvenience whatsoever on that account. As regards the allegation that the Opposite Parties are responsible for obtaining the visas and are supposed to and obliged to synchronize to get the complaint airborne in time without any problem and that the opposite parties ought to hereof the perils of arriving late for boarding, it is submitted that the Opposite Parties cannot be held responsible for any delay in issue of the visas by the consulate. Admittedly, the visa of Thailand was issued only on 12.5.2011 and it was reached to the Complainant and he also undertook  the travel. Hence there cannot be any grievance on that account. Mr. Niran, the representative of the Opposite Party had been in constant touch with the Complainant ever since the booking v was made and on the travel date of 12.5.2011 he was always with the Complainant in the airport and had personally handed over the passports, other travel documents and tickets to the Complainant. Mr. Niran personally assisted the Complainant in obtaining the boarding pass, then pass through the security check and finally board the aircraft. Further after boarding the flight, the Complainant had also called up Mr. Niran and confirmed that all things were fine. The averments in paragraph 9 above are reiterated he allegations that the agent of the Opposite Parties arrived only 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time of the again that the Complainant called the Opposite Parties countless times and none responded. That the person who the travel documents was uncooperative; that after receiving the travel documents and tickets the Complainant and is wife had to jump gates, plead with security personnel, skip queues, inconvenience self and others to reach the baggage counter of Sri Lankan Airlines only to find the counter already closed; that the Complainant had to beg with the Manager of the airlines to issue boarding pass which was denied, and that the Complainant was an object of ridicule with others at the Airport laughing at him beg for a boarding pass and after much impelling the Manager directed his officers to issue a boarding pass are all denied as baseless, unsubstantiated and motivated. At the risk of repetition, it is submitted that Mr. Niran, the representative of the Opposite Parties had been in constant touch with the Complainant ever since the booking was made and on the travel date of 12.5.2011 he was always with the Complainant in the airport and had personally handed over the passports, other travel documents and tickets to the Complainant. In fact, as at matter of courtesy Mr. Niran personally assisted the Complainant in obtaining the boarding pass, then pass through the security check and finally board the aircraft. Further, after boarding the flight, the Complainant had also called up Mr. Niran and confirmed that all things were fine. As regards the alleged problems encountered by the Complainant at the airport in boarding the Srilankan Airlines flight to Colombo after the issue of the boarding pass, it is submitted that the same are beyond control of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for the same. Once a boarding pass is issued. then it is the responsibility of the airlines to ensure the safety of its passengers. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 were marked. Inspite of several opportunities given to the Complainant, the Complainant or his Counsel not made oral Arguments and hence the oral Arguments of the Complainant’s side was closed. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no documents were marked.

Point for consideration:-

1. Whether the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complainant and far any other relief?

Point no 1:-

      It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had booked an air travel package known as Far east super budget package on 12.05.2011 with the Opposite Parties covering Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

It is in dispute that the travel documents was not delivered to the complainant until 12.05.2011, only 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time of 21:15 hours the agent of the Opposite Parties delivered the travel documents with an inordinate delay, which resulted the complainant and his wife to face very severe and untold inconveniences caused to get the boarding pass at 21:15 hours the time for departure of his scheduled flight.

The contention of the complainant is that because of delayed delivery of travel do is 15 minutes before departure flight, he and his wife was made to rush with great difficulty to get boarding and to get Emigration clearance, while rushing to Emigration counter the complainant slipped and hurt himself, his disability helped him to earn sympathy to clear emigration counter. Because of his fall he developed painful swelling which increased, with the sufferings he and his wife was made to wait for 3 hours at Bangok Airport, he had lost all his interest in the trip. Further contended that the payment of Rs.61,000/- and USD 1200 for tour package collected is unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, as the Opposite Parties had compelled him to purchase USD 1200 but had not explained the reason for such transaction which is purely to enrich themselves to earn commission as foreign exchange. Because of his fall & swelling legs he could not visit places and when the same were reported to the Opposite Parties, they had not cared about the same, instead had offered for a discount voucher of Rs.10,000/- for future, which constrained him to cause a legal notice calling the Opposite Parties to refund the tour cost and for compensation. The Opposite Parties are liable for the pain, sufferings and medical expenses, mental agony sustained because of the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties.

The contention of the Opposite Parties are that the Visa formalities are not in their hands and the same was informed to the complainant in the Tour Document marked as Ex.A.4 by the Complainant, wherein in page No.10 of the Complainant Typed Set it is clearly mentioned as “Granting of Visas on arrival is at the sole discretion of the airport authorities”. They have received the visa for Thailand only on 12.05.2011 and handed over the same before departure, hence there was no delay on their side. Further their representative who had hand over the travel documents was with the Complainant till he obtained the boarding pass and had not received any complaints from the Complainant about the alleged happenings during tour and he was undertook the tour as planned, if at all any such incidents happened they have very well provided Customer Comment Forms & Service trackers through Tour Manager and also provided Email ID as found in page No.11 of Ex.A-4 for feedback. Further contented that they had not compelled for Foreign Exchange  from Rupees to US Dollars, as they too provide foreign exchange, the Complainant only with acceptance had purchased US Dollars from them as clear details provided to him, as found in Ex.A.11, even otherwise he would have obtained from other foreign exchange agents for the same Commission. Further contended that the issue raised by the complainant with regard to handing over of Travel Documents delayed had been responded through their reply mail dated 27.07.2011 as found in page No.23 of Ex.A-11 and they  have also given a detailed reply notice dated 21.02.2012 as found in Ex.A13. Only as an afterthought, the Complainant had filed a false complaint against them.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Complainant was informed of about the visa formalities were not in their hands as well as about the service feedback available to their customers/Complainant, as found in Ex.A-4 which was marked by the Complainant himself, further Ex.A.11 marked by the Complainant in page No.20 and 21, the schedule of Travel and payment mode has been clearly mentioned wherein the Total  Tour cost of Rs.69,240/- to be paid in Indian Currency of Rs.14,400/- and the balance to be paid in US Dollars of 1200, hence it is clear that the Complainant was aware of mode of payment and on acceptance had availed foreign exchange from the Opposite Parties.

On  above discussions, we hold that the Opposite Parties had acted diligently adhering the terms and conditions of the Tour document and had not caused any inconveniences deliberately to the Complainant and the contentions of the Complainant that he had faced serious inconveniences and the Opposite Parties had compelled to avail for foreign exchange from Indian Currency to US Dollars, from them, are not sustainable. Therefore, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties had not committed unfair trade practice and / or deficiency of service. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the complaint and for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.

 

 

In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 25^th day of August 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	09.04.2011	Copy of Booking Form
Ex.A2	22.04.2011	Copy of Electronic Ticket
Ex.A3	22.04.2011	Copy of Electronic Ticket
Ex.A4	-	Copy of Tour Document
Ex.A5	04.05.2011	Copy of Visa (Malaysia)
Ex.A6	04.05.2011	Copy of Visa (Malaysia)
Ex.A7	05.05.2011	Copy of Visa (Singapore)
Ex.A8	05.05.2011	Copy of Visa (Singapore)
Ex.A9	12.05.2011	Copy of Visa (Thailand)
Ex.A10	12.05.2011	Copy of Visa (Thailand)
Ex.A11	-	Copy of e-mail communications
Ex.A12	30.01.2012	Copy of Lawyer notice with acknowledgement card
Ex.A13	21.02.2012	Copy of Reply

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT