Haryana

StateCommission

A/13/2019

JAI PARKASH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

YATRA COM. TRAVEK - Opp.Party(s)

BHIM SINGH

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.13 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 04.01.2019

                                                          Date of final hearing: 21.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 30.12.2022

 

Jai Parkash Sharma son of Daryao Singh, resident of D093, Raheja Atlantis, Sector 31, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

Yatra.com, Travek Agebctm 1101, 11^th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurgaon.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Anil Sharma S/o Sh. Jai Parkash Sharma appellant in person.

                   Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 80 day in filing the present appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.13 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.498 of 2017, which was partly allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2017 complainant applied for tour package ‘Jewels of Europe’ spanning for 14 nights/15 days for two guests and paid Rs.60,000/- to opposite party (OP) as it was assured by representative of OP on 12.05.2017 that their journey has been scheduled for 03.06.2017 but on 02.06.2017 about 05:00 pm complainant got call from OP that flight will depart from airport at 09:00 pm on the same day and he got UK visa by 06:40 pm. Following this development complainant requested OP to schedule their flight for 03.06.2017, but in vain. Infact it was not possible for him to board the flight by 09:00 pm on the same day because this date was changed without any prior communication. This is how due to all this miscommunication complainant did not enjoy the London visit but remained asleep in the hotel room and get up next morning to catch the train to Paris and even no taxi was arranged by OP for complainant from airport to hotel. The confirmation of Schengen visa came on 09.10.2017 but on 01.06.2017 OP asked him to withdraw UK visa application so that passport maybe available to him on the next day. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence this complaint.

4.      In its written version, OP raised preliminary objection regarding non-joinder of necessary party. On merits, OP submitted that OP was merely a ticketing agent providing facility through the medium of internet and phone and arranges hotel, tour and travel booking as per users convenience and complainant was bound by Master User Agreement. OP admitted that complainant booked tour package for two guests on 12.04.2017 but denied the change of date as alleged.  It was informed to the complainant that 03.06.2017 was the date of arrival at London and journey was to start on 02.06.2017 itself. Infact it was only in consultation with complainant that flight was booked for 04.06.2017. Complainant did not provide complete information in excel sheet which delayed the process of visa application. Granting of visa did not fall within domain of OP rather the same was in complete discretion of respective embassies granting/refusing the visa. OP has already given Rs.25,000/- to complainant as compensation without any liability and negligence on his part. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Gurgaon has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 23.08.2018, which is as under:-

“After perusal of the facts on file, the evidence adduced by both the parties and hearing the oral arguments of both the parties, it emerges that there is no doubt that the complainant booked a tour package under the name of “Jewels of Europe” for himself and his wife which was to start on 03.06.2017. There is no dispute that the complainant received the booking confirmation from the OP. However, on account of visa issue which was prerogative of the concerned Embassy, the visa could not be issued in time and as such the complainant could not join the tour which was scheduled to departure on 02.06.2017 and thus to minimize the loss of the complainant opposite party booked earliest flight for 04.06.2017 so that the complainant may join the said tour group and may enjoy the said tour group from London onward. There is nothing on the file that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with regard to the further programme for London onward.

However, it has come in evidence that on account of missing of the tour to London, the opposite party has refunded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.  Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that a sum of Rs.10,000/- further granted to the complainant to be paid by the OP within 30 days failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest on the above said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Anil Sharma S/o Sh. Jai Parkash Sharma-appellant in person as well as Sh. Sachin Ohri, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of the appeal as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Appellant in person argued that as per email,  the journey date was scheduled as 03.06.2017 instead of 02.06.2017 and there was every possibility for complainant and his wife to join tour since beginning as per programme scheduled. OP was negligent to mention the wrong name of the complainant in both the Visas applications, which caused unnecessary delay. The complainant was entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued that as per tour package, the date of departure was 02.06.2017 and date of arrival at London was 03.06.2017 which was informed to them. In addition to that OP/respondent has already paid Rs.25,000/- to complainant as compensation without any liability and negligence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.  

10.              Since the OP has already paid Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant, which means that the OP has been deficient in providing services to the complainant.   Due to deficient services on behalf of the OP, the visa could not be issued in time and complainant could not join the tour, which was scheduled on 02.06.2017.  The compensation awarded by the learned District Commission is on lower side, which is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. Rest of the impugned order is maintained. With this modification, appeal stands disposed off.

11.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

30^th December, 2022          Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)