Punjab

Sangrur

CC/512/2022

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vacation Pro International Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 512

 Instituted on:   01.06.2022

                                                                         Decided on:     03.04.2023

 

Sukhwinder Singh Phull aged 67 years son of Sh. Hari Singh, resident of Kishanpura, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.         Vacation Pro International Private Limited, 305-K-10 Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

2.         Kashmir Taxi Service, Airport Road, Humhuma, Srinagar 190001.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant      : Rishab Sharma, Adv.              

For OP No.1                        : Shri Amanjot Singh, Adv.

For OP No. 2                        : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by getting booked a tour package for 3 nights 4 days i.e. from 20.4.2022 to 23.4.2022 and paid an amount of Rs.1,12,000/-. Out of the said amount the complainant paid an amount of Rs.72,000/- on 23.2.2022 in cash and an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid through Indusind Bank, Sangrur on 25.3.2022. In the said package, the OP had to provide air tickets, local transportation service, local visits, pick and drop to the airport and hotel accommodation. The grievance of the complainant is that during the whole tour, behaviour of the taxi driver, who picked up the complainant from airport and dropped at hotel was not fair and proper and the taxi driver charged Rs.3000/- forcibly from the complainant to visit local places and demanded extra money of Rs.1500/- from the complainant for dropping them from hotel to airport.  Further case of complainant is that on 23.4.2022 the complainant arranged taxi by paying Rs.1000/-, whereas as per the package, it was the duty of the driver to provide the service from dropping the complainant to airport and by this way, the complainant had to pay Rs.4000/- in excess to the driver, which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of visit till realization and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OP number 1  appeared and filed written response raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting booked the tour program for Srinagar after paying requisite amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for three nights four days. It is stated that on 21.4.2022 the OP received a call from the complainant regarding refusal of the driver for Srinagar local sightseeing tour. The OP immediately called the owner of Kashmir Taxi Service and the grievance of the complainant was immediately redressed. It is further averred that immediately after the complaint of the complainant, a conference call was arranged with the owner of the Kashmir Taxi Service and complainant and he agreed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation to which complainant agreed but later on when OP followed up the matter, he refused to honour the commitment. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special cots.

3.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not put appearance, as such was proceeded exparte.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             In order to prove case the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of deposit slip, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8 mobile chats and Ex.C-9 copy of application and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 self attested affidavit and closed evidence.

7.             A bare perusal of the file reveals that the complainant got booked the tour package through OP number 1 for visiting Srinagar for three nights four days after paying an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP had to provide the taxi for visiting various places in Srinagar, but the bevahiour of the taxi driver was not fair and proper due to which the complainant had to spent an amount of R.4000/- from his pocket,  which fact is also admitted by the OP number 1 whereby stating that OP number 2 agreed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- being compensation, but later on the same amount was not paid to the complainant.  Though the stand of the OP number 1 is that it is the OP number 2 who had to pay the amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant and the OP number 2 had to do nothing in this regard.  But we are unable to accept such a contention of the OP number 1 for the reason that the complainant had availed the services of OP number 1 and OP number 1 had arranged the service of the OP number 2 for the complainant, for which the complainant had paid to OP number 1 and not to OP number 2. But in the present case, as discussed above, the complainant has already paid an amount of Rs.4000/- being taxi charges to OP number 2, which seems to be illegal one.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 was though summoned, but he chose to remain exparte. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2.  Further a bare perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.4000/- from his pocket and must have suffered mental tension and harassment for which the OP number 2 is liable to reimburse the same.

8.             Accordingly, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2, as such we direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- so charged in excess from the complainant.  We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                        Pronounced.

 

                       April 3, 2023.