CC No.753/2019                              Date of filing:06.05.2019

                                                Date of Disposal:07.09.2020

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICTCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.753/2019

PRESENT: 

Sri.  Venkatasudarshan  D.R.  B.Com,LL.M.,      ….  PRESIDENT

Smt. L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.                    ….      MEMBER

Sri. M.B. Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.                ….     MEMBER              

COMPLAINANT:

Sri.S.S.Mahendra,

S/o R.Shankar Survarna,

Aged about 49 Years,

“Chandrima”, No.1, 63 EHS,

1^st Main, 3^rd Cross,

4^th Phase, Yelahanka New Town,

Bengaluru-560064.

(Complainant by Sri.H.S.Shankar, Advocate) 

V/s 

OPPOSITE PARTY:

Trip Factory,

11^th Floor, N1 Block,

Manyata Embassy Business Park,

Bengaluru-560045,

Rep by its Chief Executive Officer.

Exparte.           

= = = = = = = = = = = =    

WRITTEN BY SRI VENKATASUDARSHAN D.R., PRESIDENT

            ******

//ORDERS ON MERITS//

This is a complaint filed by Sri.S.S.Mahendra Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Trip Factory represented by Chief Executive Officer praying for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 17.01.2019 till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience, hardship and difficulties undergone by the Opposite Party.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant as per the complaint are that, the Complainant had planned a family trip along with his wife and two children to Singapore and Malaysia and accordingly booked the Air tickets.  One Ms.Yasmin Taj Travel Expert was assigned to assist the Complainant.  It was specifically negotiated that a four star hotel accommodation, local transport and VISA for Singapore as well as Malaysia for four travelers and package itinerary was fixed for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-.  The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 02.11.2018 and the balance of Rs.1,45,000/- on 08.11.2018.  During the initial discussion Mr.Alok Sharma who is responsible person of the Opposite Party and Ms.Yesmin Taj were present.  Initially it was suggested that Century Lankasuka Resort in Langkawi was intended to be booked.  Later on it was changed to Century Langkawi Lake Resort which is cheap hour.  In spite of repeated request to give time wise itinerary they stated that it will be shared 48 hours before departure. Even that was not done.  The urgency shown by Ms.Yesmin Taj before collecting Rs.50,000/- advance   did not remain after collecting the advance.  The VISA was not processed immediately.  There was no proper response from Ms.Yesmin Taj after receipt of the advance.

3. It is further case of the Complainant that the VISA team of the Opposite Party is unprofessional and irresponsible.  All the required documents for getting VISA of Singapore was given to the Opposite Party agent personally by the Complainant.  In spite of that there was no proper response from Ms.Yesmin Taj with regard to the visa.  Ultimately after repeated persistence, the Malaysia VISA was uploaded.  While uploading the Visa of Aaditri Mahendra Suvarna daughter of the Complainant was uploaded twice and visa of Chirag Mahendra Suvarna son of the Complainant was not at all uploaded.   That issue was raised on 12.11.2018 by writing a mail and also by giving personal visits on 14.11.2018.  The Complainant could collect only 3 visas with passports.  The Complainant was in terrible pressure, but the Opposite Party was very casual.  However it was assured that another Visa will be handed over on 15.11.2018 the travelling date was 16.11.2018.  Thus the Complainant had to run around several times for collecting visa and undergo mental pressure.  The Complainant started his journey on 16.11.2018 with his family members to Singapure, where one Mr.Nathan took care of local transport.  But they were not provided a standard room.  Instead they were provided a substandard room in Village Hotel Albert Court, a small room.  The Complainant and his family members were housed outside the main hotel premises.   When enquired Ms.Yesmin responded that the price will not match.  This is deficiency in service.
4. It is further case of the Complainant that they started journey to Malaysia-Langkawi on 20.11.2018 along with his family members.  His flight was at 12-25 am, at Immigration Centre, it was noticed by the officials that VISA of Chirag Mahendra Suvarna was miss matching.  When tried to contact Ms.Yesmin there was no response.  However Mr.Alok, responded.  In the meantime the Complainant and his family members were fully tensed.  However they were advised to go to Langkawi and take visa on arrival for Chirag Mahendra Suvarna.  However on enquiry, it came to know that there was no option of “ON ARRIVAL VISA” for Langkawi.  Therefore, the Complainant and his family members were asked to fly to Kuala Lumpur take arrival VISA and then fly to Langkawi.  Accordingly, Mr.Alok arranged tickets in Air Asia flight to departure at 2.55 p.m.  The Complainant and his family members rushed to another terminal and boarded the flight, the collected soft copy of VISA of Chirag Mahendra Suvarna was later sent to him.  They had to take out print of the soft copy of the visa after running hereunder.  That has resulted in missing of the flight.  Later when approached the customer service they have agreed to reschedule the same.  When the same is conveyed to Mr.Alok, he assured the Complainant that the same will be compensated and asked the Complainant to go ahead.  Accordingly, the Complainant has got rescheduled the flight at 8.25 p.m by paying RM 318.  They reached Langkawi at about 10.00 PM and reached the Century Beach Resort at 10.30 p.m in the night.  That hotel is in isolated place outside the town and by that time, they reached the restaurant was closed.  The children from the Complainant were aged 9 years and 11 Years.  They had to starve whole night without food the condition of the hotel room was also bad with no maintenance.  It was stinking with spider web, water is leaking in the Air Conditioner, TV was not working.  On account of this, the whole day i.e., on 20.11.2018 has gone waste to the Complainant and his family members. 

5. It is further case of the Complainant that on 21.11.2018, after Langkawi Island hopping tour, there was nobody to take the Complainant and his family members to hotel.  They had wait for more than one hour. Then they were taken to hotel.   It is stated that on 22.11.2018 the stay of Complainant and his family members in Grand Season Hotel-at Kualalumpur was good.  On 23.11.2018 morning the Complainant and his family members were waiting in the lobby after taking breakfast in the ground floor of the hotel.  The driver did not come to pickup.  When the Complainant contacted the concerned 6 times, but none available.  They were asked to hire taxi and go to Batu caves.  Therefore, the Complainant hired a taxi by spending around RM 19.50., and that travel was also irresponsible.  According to the Complainant all these acts of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service.  So he got issued a Legal Notice demanding the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.  The Opposite Party who received the notice did not even bother to reply.  Hence, this complaint.

6. In this case, there is only one Opposite Party, after admitting the complaint notice was issued to the Opposite Party.  Opposite Party though served the notice did not appear hence placed ex-parte. 

7. When the case was set down for recording evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. 

8. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the Complainant did not submit his argument.  He is not defended by an advocate inspite of that opportunities were granted from 04.09.2019 till 24.08.2020 for the Complainant to argue the matter.  But no argument was advanced.

9.  The points that arise for our determination are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op ?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that he is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint ?
3. What order? 

10.   Our findings on the above points are:-

Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative

Point No.3:- As per the final order for the following

                           -:REASONS:-

11. POINT NO.1:- This is a complaint filed by Sri.S.S.Mahendra Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Trip Factory represented by Chief Executive Officer praying for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from 17.01.2019 till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused.

12. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has committed an act of deficiency in service by not conducting itself in the manner as assured right from the period of obtaining visas till they returned from the trip.  The burden of proving this aspect is on the Complainant only.  The Complainant in order to prove the same has filed his affidavit evidence and also got EX.P1 to 8 marked.  In the affidavit evidence, the Complainant has reiterated all the complaint averments.  Since the averments in the complaint have already been narrated above, there is no need for us to discuss again about the averments in the affidavit.

13. In this case, it is worthy to note that though the notice issued by this Commission under RPAD has been duly served on the Opposite Party, there is no appearance before this Commission either by the Opposite Party in person or through an Authorized Agent.  Thus the Opposite Party has remained ex-parte without their being any contest to the case of the Complainant.

14. In order to ascertain the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party it is necessary to list out from the averments made in the complaint and the affidavit evidence about the various acts on the part of the Opposite Party which amounts to deficiency in service there are as under:

i. The Opposite Party not being diligent in obtaining visa to the Complainant and family members’ diligently on time and thus made the Complainant to undergo terrible mental pressure.

ii. The further mental agony caused to the Complainant was that the Opposite Party have made available only visas of three persons out of 4.  The Opposite Party have applied for visa of Aaditri Mahendra Suvarna daughter of the Complainant twice and whereas no application seems to have been made for obtaining the visa of the son of the Complainant Chirag Mahendra Suvarna.  It was only after hectic efforts the Complainant could get the visa of his son and again with mistake committed by the Opposite Party. Then shows the careless on the part of the Opposite Party.

iii. At Singapore they were not provided a standard accommodation as promised.  They were provided a substandard room in a Village Hotel Albert Court, which a small room and they were all housed outside the main hotel premises.  The Opposite Party evaded when contacted by saying that they did price match.

iv. Due to the defect in the visa of Mr.Chirag Mahendra Suvarna the Complainant and his family members had problem at the immigration when they wanted to go to Langkawi on 20.11.2018.  There was no response from Ms.Yesmin when called over phone but Mr.Alok had responded and as per his advice they had to fly to Kuala Lumpur and take arrival visa and then fly to Langkawi as a result of this there was shift in terminal for boarding the flight which has put them under lot of mental tension.

v.  Even at Kuala Lumpur there was a flight delay and he had to go round to find out the shop where he could get the printout of the visa of Chirag Mahendra Suvarna as the airport staff insisted for hard copy.  However by that time the time for the departure of that flight was over.  This has put the Complainant and his family members were put to lot of inconvenience, harassment and hardship.

vi. On the advice of Mr.Alok who assured reimbursement the Complainant had to purchase flight ticket to go by flight which was scheduled to departure by 8.25 p.m. by paying Malaysian currency of RM318 out of his packet.

On account of this negligence on the part of the Opposite Party there was a delay in the Complainant and his family members reaching Langkawi that is by 10.30 p.m where they had to spend the whole night without dinner.  The condition of the hotel was so bad that it was stinking, water leaking from the air conditioner, TV not work etc.

Apart from the above, the Complainant and his family members also have undergone lot of inconvenience during the trip which was an account of the Opposite Party not making proper arrangements as promised.

15.  It is worth noting here that the above said contentions taken by the Complainant if perused, one can certainly infer easily that the Complainant and his family members were put to lot of harassment, hardship and inconvenience during their tour.  They were also made to spend money for no fault of them.  All these happened solely due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party did not take care to make proper arrangements, for the comfortable journey and stay of the Complainant and his family members when included two childrens.  This certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  At the cost of repetition it has to be stated that the above said allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence have remained unchallenged undisputed.  The Opposite Party has not bothered to appear before the Forum to contest the case by filing version.  It is note as if the Opposite Party was not aware of these allegations.  The allegations were within the knowledge of the Opposite Party.  This we say so because before filing this complaint the Complainant had got issued a legal notice through an advocate on 17.01.2019 which is marked as EX.P8 under RPAD.  The postal acknowledgement produced shows that the same has been served.   In that notice all the allegation made in the complaint are averred.   So the Opposite Party was very much aware of the allegations made by the Complainant.  In addition to this the notice issued by this Forum which is obviously along with the Complaint has been received by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is presumed to have fully read and understood all the allegations made by the Complainant.  In spite of all these the Opposite Party has remained absent and did not appear before us to contest the case.  The Opposite Party remained ex-parte.  Thus it can be said that the Opposite Party by its conduct and by implication has admitted all the complaint averments and allegations made therein against Opposite Party.     

16.  Thus in the light of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Accordingly, we answer Point No1 in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

17.  POINT No.2 & 3:- In view of the finding recorded on Point No.1 holding that the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the next aspect to be considered is about the entitlement of the Complainant for the reliefs sought.  The Complainant in the complaint is seeking for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards harassment, inconvenience mental agony, stress and disappointment is also claiming another Rs.50,000/- on the same ground.  The basis for making two claims in respect of the same relief or for the same reason is not admissible.  It is nodoubt true that by looking at the averments in the complaint and also the affidavit evidence of the Complainant one can say that the Complainant and his family members were put to lot of hardship that to in a foreign country.  Apart from that for no fault of the Complainant he has to spent Malaysian currency of RM as 318, as he had rescheduled his tour.  Malaysian currency RM means ringgit (MYR) though the Complainant has not given its equal value in Indian currency from the website we could make out that the equalant of one Indian Rupee =0.057220.  Approximately the INR value of 318 RM would be about Rs.5,600/- this amount was promised to reimbursement.  Taking all these aspects into account, we are of the considered view that the Complainant can be awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- lumpsum as compensation.  Apart from this the Opposite Party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.2 & 3 partly in the affirmative and infavour of the Complainant and proceed to pass the following final order.

-:ORDER:-

The complaint filed by the complainant Sri.S.S.Mahendra u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Trip Factory is partly allowed as under:

1. The Complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) from the Opposite Party as compensation for the inconvenience, harassment, loss, mental stress or resulting in mental agony caused to the Complainant and his family members.

2. The Opposite Party is directed to make payment of the above said sum within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order.   Failing which the Opposite Party is liable to pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only)from 06.05.2019, till the date of actual payment.

3. The Complainant is also entitle to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/-( Rupees Five Thousand only ) from the Opposite Party towards cost of litigation.

4.  The Opposite Party shall comply with the above said order within 30 days from the date of order.

5. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the open Forum on 7^th Day of September 2020)                                             

  (M.B.SEENA)        (L.MAMATHA)     (D.R. VENKATASUDARSHAN)                                                     MEMBER                 MEMBER                      PRESIDENT  

//ANNEXURE//

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT SIDE: 

Sri.S.S.Mahendra, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit. 

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

1. Air Tickets.
2. Trip schedule issued by the Opposite Party
3. Office copy of Notice with postal receipts acknowledgement.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 

-NIL-

(M.B. SEENA)        (L.MAMATHA)     (D.R. VENKATASUDARSHAN)                                                 MEMBER                 MEMBER                      PRESIDENT