Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member
1. Ravinder Singh & Gurjinder Kaur have brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainants got booked a holiday package for visiting Leh-Ladhak for the period from 18.6.2016 to 25.6.2016 by making online payment of Rs. 81,688/- which included cost of air-fare, lodging, food and transport vehicle on sharing basis for Airport transfers, sightseeing and intercity transfers as per iternary . This was confirmed by the opposite party vide letter dated 14.6.2016. At the time of booking it was stated that representative of the opposite party company would assist complainants for site seeing, transfers from hotel to various site seeing spots, hotel accommodation etc. At the time of booking, it was also assured that travel of the passengers would be smooth as shown in the advertisements being run on website and various televisions channels “Dard Mat Sahiya, Thomascook.in par holidays se judi har cheez sorted hai’ Thomascook.in (Travel Smooth). But the complainant was surprised when nothing was smooth while passing holidays by them at Leh-Ladhak as Mr. Aditya, representative of opposite party company did not provide services as assured at the time of booking of holiday package. Miseries of the complainants started from the morning when they were to left for Pangong Lake as group of persons belonging to Mumbai with whom the complainants were travelling left early by throwing the belongings of complainants on the road and when they asked the reason from Mr. Aditya , he replied rudely to complainants that said car was their private vehicle . The other cab was occupied by other group which had come from Delhi and when complainants asked Mr. Aditya to adjust complainants in second cab, he showed his inability by saying that he cannot force the boys to accommodate the complainants. However, it was the duty of the representative of the opposite party company to make prior adjustments and inform complainants prior to their departure from the hotel, about the car which was deployed to carry complainant, which the opposite party failed to provide . Ultimately group of four boys from Hyderabad took complainants along in the car provided to them by Aditya with the complainant that complainants shall occupy rear seats only. So the complainants travelled to Pangong lake at the mercy of Hyderabad boys. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In this regard complainants sent e-mail to the opposite party regarding the torture suffered by them at the hands of Mr.Aditya but the opposite party gave evasive reply in which instead of admitting their responsibility the opposite party claimed that it was first come first basis. In that situation how a person above the age of 60 years can compete with boys less than 30 years of age. Besides the complainants all other persons in the group were less than 30 years of age. A legal notice was sent to the opposite party company on 4.8.2016 requesting them to refund the entire amount received by the opposite party at the time of booking said holiday package and make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which the complainant failed to refund the same. Vide instant complaint , complainant has sought for refund of entire amount received by the opposite party company at the time of booking of said holiday package alongwith Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of harassment , mental agony and unfair trade practice suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice,opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that complainants booked Group Tour Holiday Package which was marketed as “Magical Ladakh 7 Nights/8 days-Standard”. It was submitted that the complainants booked the tour through the Web portal of the opposite party after fully satisfying themselves about the governing terms and conditions and the inclusions and exclusions of the package. Tour cost paid was Rs. 80,688/- . It was submitted that the opposite party runs honest and transparent advertisements through its website and other modes . The opposite party had transparently communicated all the inclusions and exclusions of the tour package in question and no exaggerated assurances were made. All the service which were included and mentioned in the itinerary at the time of booking of the tour, were duly provided and have been enjoyed and utilized by the complainants. The complainants have made false allegations regarding facing difficulties during transfer from Leh to Pangong Lake on the 4th day of the tour. Infact the correct factual position is that the complainants were not co-operating and co-ordinating with the other co-passengers and had been adamant to occupy front seats of the shares cabs on each and every occasion thereby causing inconvenience to other co-passengers. There was no specific reservation for seats in the vehicles and it was purely on the basis of first come first served basis and on the principle of mutual accommodation. Allegations of throwing of luggage on road by group members are denied . It was submitted that the complainants were duly accommodated in the shared cab and they did not suffer any humiliation, mental agony or harassment as falsely alleged by the complainants. It was further submitted that complainants, who have enjoyed and utilized each and every service of the tour in question, are not entitled to any refund of the amount paid for the tour and are also not entitled for any compensation on account of the alleged harassment, mental agony and torture. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.V.K.Sehgal,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Es.C-1, copy of notice Ex.C-2, copy of acknowledgement receipts Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copy of e-mail Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Kuldip Singh,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Maulik Thakore, Sr. Manager Ex.OP1, authorization letter Ex.OP2, copy of print of terms and conditions Ex.OP3, copy of itinerary of tour Ex.OP4, copy of e-mail dated 8.6.2016 Ex.OP5, copy of tour confirmation letter Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainants has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that complainants got booked a holiday package for visiting Leh-Ladhak for the period from 18.6.2016 to 25.6.2016 by making online payment of Rs. 81,688/- which included cost of air-fare, lodging, food and transport vehicle on sharing basis for Airport transfers, sightseeing and intercity transfers as per iternary , which was confirmed vide letter dated 14.6.2016. It has been alleged by the ld.counsel for the complainant that at the time of booking it was stated that representative of the opposite party company would assist complainants for site seeing, transfers from hotel to various site seeing spots, hotel accommodation etc. But, however, complainant was surprised when nothing was smooth while passing holidays by them at Leh-Ladhak as Mr. Aditya, representative of opposite party company did not provide services as assured at the time of booking of holiday package as they were to left for Pangong Lake as group of persons belonging to Mumbai with whom the complainants were travelling left early by throwing the belongings of complainants on the road and when they asked the reason from Mr. Aditya , he replied rudely to complainants that said car was their private vehicle . The other cab was occupied by other group which had come from Delhi and when complainants asked Mr. Aditya to adjust complainants in second cab, he showed his inability by saying that he cannot force the boys to accommodate the complainants. Ultimately group of four boys from Hyderabad took complainants along in the car provided to them by Aditya with the complainant that complainants shall occupy rear seats only. So the complainants travelled to Pangong lake at the mercy of Hyderabad boys. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service.
7. On the other hand opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that complainants booked the tour through the Web portal of the opposite party after fully satisfying themselves about the governing terms and conditions and the inclusions and exclusions of the package. Tour cost paid was Rs. 80,688/- . The opposite party had transparently communicated all the inclusions and exclusions of the tour package in question and no exaggerated assurances were made. All the service which were included and mentioned in the itinerary at the time of booking of the tour, were duly provided and have been enjoyed and utilized by the complainants. The complainants have made false allegations regarding facing difficulties during transfer from Leh to Pangong Lake on the 4th day of the tour. Infact the correct factual position is that the complainants were not co-operating and co-ordinating with the other co-passengers and had been adamant to occupy front seats of the shares cabs on each and every occasion thereby causing inconvenience to other co-passengers. It was submitted that there was no specific reservation for seats in the vehicles and it was purely on the basis of first come first served basis and on the principle of mutual accommodation. However, allegations of throwing of luggage on road by group members are denied . It was submitted that the complainants were duly accommodated in the shared cab and they did not suffer any humiliation, mental agony or harassment as falsely alleged by the complainants. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that as the complainants have enjoyed and utilized each and every service of the tour in question, as such they are not entitled to any refund of the amount paid for the tour and are also not entitled for any compensation on account of the alleged harassment, mental agony and torture. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite party company did not provide services as assured at the time of booking of holiday package by making payment of Rs. 80,688/- as they were to left for Pangong Lake as group of persons belonging to Mumbai with whom the complainants were travelling left early by throwing the belongings of complainants on the road . However, the other cab was occupied by other group which had come from Delhi and when complainants asked Mr. Aditya to adjust complainants in second cab, he showed his inability by saying that he cannot force the boys to accommodate the complainants. Ultimately group of four boys from Hyderabad took complainants along in the car provided to them by Aditya with the complainant that complainants shall occupy rear seats only. So the complainants travelled to Pangong lake at the mercy of Hyderabad boys. But, however, the case of the opposite party that complainants were not co-operating and co-ordinating with the other co-passengers and had been adamant to occupy front seats of the shares cabs on each and every occasion thereby causing inconvenience to other co-passengers. It was submitted that there was no specific reservation for seats in the vehicles and it was purely on the basis of first come first served basis and on the principle of mutual accommodation. However, the case of the complainant regarding throwing of belongings of the complainant on road is not proved as the complainant has not filed any complaint regarding throwing of belongings of the complainant in any police station as no FIR in this regard has been produced on the file. As the complainant has availed all the services rendered by the opposite party and now after lapse of six months of availing the services, has filed the present complaint . The version of the opposite party that there was no specific reservation for seats in the vehicles and it was purely on the basis of first come first served basis and on the principle of mutual accommodation is as per terms and conditions of the Holidays package. In our considered opinion the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the holiday package in dispute. We seek support on this point from M/s. V.K. Karyana Store Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(3) CLT page 47 wherein it has been held that it is well settled principle of law that parties are bound by terms and conditions of the insurance policy and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions.
9. The complainant cannot wriggle out from the terms and conditions of the package in dispute. There is absolutely no deficiency of service or use of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. As such, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 10.5.2017
