Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/285/2021

Mr. Manish Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trip String(OPC) - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Shalini & Pawan

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	285 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	07.05.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	08.09.2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr.Manish Goyal s/o Sh.Raj Kumar Goyal, Resident of H.no.2295, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Trip String (OPC) Private Limited, JE 35A, Gupta Colony Khriki Extn. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017

2]  Travel Triangle, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Dynamic House, Plot No.29, Sector 18, Gurugram, Haryana 122015

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Ms.Shalini, Adv. for complainant.

   OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA,  MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant availed Honeymoon package of Goa from OP No.1, through OP No.2 web-portal, by paying an amount of Rs.37,000/- (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that the honeymoon package was inclusive of 5 days stay at Riva Beach Resort at Mandrem Beach Road, Pernem, Goa and Airport transfers as well. The package further included 3 night stay at Super Deluxe Room and 2 night stay at Premium Sea view Room with bath tub and flavoured cake, room decoration with flowers and a candle light dinner at Riva Beach Resort (Ann.C-5).  It is submitted that on reaching Goa, the confirmed booked Riva Beach Resort was changed to Regenta Beach Resort by the agent on the ground of non-availability, which too was not upto mark and when the agent was requested to change it, he denied to do so.  It is also submitted that under pressure and having no option, the complainant had to stay at Regenta Place at Pernem, Junas Waddo, Goa and that the said hotel Regenta was located at isolated and unsafe place.  It is peladed that the location of said hotel did not have direct connectivity with the road transport, so the complainant and his wife had to walk via narrow “kaccha” way to reach the Hotel.  Further the room provided by the Hotel was not one mentioned in the package; rather it was downgraded room than the pre-booked honeymoon package.  It is also pleaded that the agent of the OPs despite promise failed to change the Regenta Hotel and it was only on 21.1.2021 when they were shifted to Riva Beach Resort only for remaining two days and check-out from there on 23.1.2021 (Ann.C-8 to C-10).  It is asserted that the room decoration for the couple was done at the last day of their stay at Goa after several requests and failed promises to get it done by the agent of OP No.1. It is also asserted that the due to deficient, unethical and unfair act & conduct of the OPs, the whole honeymoon trip of the complainant and his wife was spoiled, which gave bad experience of their life, causing immense harassment and mental agony.  A legal notice has also been sent to the OPs (Ann.C-13 & C-14) in this regard, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       OPs did not turn up despite service of notices, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.3.2022.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have perused the entire record.  

 

5]       It is well evident on record that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.37,600/- to the OPs for honeymoon package of Goa for 6 days & 5 nights stay for two adults for the period from 19.1.2021 o 24.1.2021 (Ann.C-1). The communication exchanged between the parties i.e. complainant and agent of OPs followed by legal notice sent by the complainant to OPs, which remained unanswered (An.C-2 to C-13), it is clear that the OPs failed to provide promised services to the complainant/consumer. The failure on the part of OPs to render promised services to complainant/consumer despite receipt of complete amount under the honeymoon package clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 

 

6]       Also it is observed that the OPs despite being duly served, failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served, which raised a reasonable presumption that the Opposite Parties have failed to render due service to the complainant and have nothing to contradict meaning thereby that they duly admits the claim of the complainant.  

 

7]       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a compository amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as compensation for  causing mental agony, harassment due to their deficient services, which also includes litigation expense.

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.15,000/- apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th Sept., 2022                                                                        

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER