- Dr. Tanay Chakraborty.
- Dr. Abhijit Ghosh,
9B, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata-9.
3) Dr. Samar Rudra. ________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Travel & Cargo Service (World) Pvt. Ltd.
23, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.
- Sri Arup Lahiri,
Travel & Cargo Service (World) Pvt. Ltd.
23, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 14 Dated 22-06-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that “XX FLGO WORLD CON GRESS OF GYNAECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS” was held in Rome, Italy from 7.10.12 – 12.10.12. Dr. Sudip Chakraborti, a senior Gynaecologist was organizing a tour of neighbouring Switzerland (Part) and parts of Italy to culminate in Rome on 7.10.12 and for that had approached the o.p. and they had prepared a tour programme. Dr. Sudip Chakravarti referred the name of o.p. to complainants who approached the o.p. and reviewed the tour programme.
It was mentioned in the tour programme that the return form Rome to Kolkata is on 10.10.12 to this when the complainants asked the o.p., he said that everybody was returning to Kolkata on 10.10.l12 so he had prepared it like that after discussing with Dr. Sudip Chakravarti the complainants in good faith agreed to that. That Dr. Tanay Chakraborty and Dr. Samar Rudra had already paid the registration fees (600 Euro) and Dr. Abhijit Ghosh anticipating the mismanagement decided to do spot registration in Rome according to the situation. As per the tour programme published in May 2012, o.p. was charging approximately Rs.1,96,000/- person.
In the month of Sept. 2012, o.p. told the complainants to enhance the said amount to Rs.2,18,008/- per head. Complainant nos.1 and 3 under compelling condition agreed to it. Complainant no.2 protested and wanted to withdraw himself and his wife from the tour. O.p. said that if he withdraws now, then all his advance will be forfeited – an argument followed and finally a sum of Rs.2, 00,000/- per person was settled by o.ps. for complainant no.2 and his wife.
Two days before the scheduled departure, o.p. requested complainant no.1 to act temporarily as the tour leader since the scheduled leader Dr. Sudip Chakravarti was traveling separately to a separate country and would meet the complainants later on in the trip and take over the leadership charges and stay with the team till return. Complainant no.1 having no experience of the foreign country was compelled to accept the leadership. O.p. handed over the charges to another travel agency in Kolkata who had further handed over the charges to a third travel agent in U.K. to handle the tour.
On 2.10.12 complainants were provided with forbidden meat for dinner. Their sentiments ere severally hurt, but the service provider refused to provide alternate meat and complainants had to pay separately heavily top opt for normal meat (chicken). Complainants were put into a hotel in Rome far away from the conference venue. No transport was provided by the organizing committee of the conference for this hotel because of its distance and complainants had to spend lot of time and foreign currency for the taxi to take them to the venue.
Complainants for such mismanagement could not take part in the conference and had to unwillingly return to Kolkata by the 10th flight although most of the delegates stayed back till the end. Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the evidence of the complainant and documents in particular and we find that Dr. Sudip Chakravarti referred the name of o.p. to complainants who approached the o.p. and reviewed the tour programme. It was mentioned in the tour programme that the return form Rome to Kolkata is on 10.10.12 to this when the complainants asked the o.p., he said that everybody was returning to Kolkata on 10.10.l12 so he had prepared it like that after discussing with Dr. Sudip Chakravarti the complainants in good faith agreed to that. That Dr. Tanay Chakraborty and Dr. Samar Rudra had already paid the registration fees (600 Euro) and Dr. Abhijit Ghosh anticipating the mismanagement decided to do spot registration in Rome according to the situation.
It is seen from the record that o.p. handed over the charges to another travel agency in Kolkata who had further handed over the charges to a third travel agent in U.K. to handle the tour. Complainants were put into a hotel in Rome far away from the conference venue. No transport was provided by the organizing committee of the conference for this hotel because of its distance and complainants had to spend lot of time and foreign currency for the taxi to take them to the venue. Complainants for such mismanagement could not take part in the conference and had to unwillingly return to Kolkata by the 10th flight although most of the delegates stayed back till the end.
In view of the findings above and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we find that the evidence adduced by complainant has remained unchallenged testimony and we do not have any reason to disbelieve the same and as such, we hold that complainant has been able to prove his case and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
