Haryana

StateCommission

A/695/2018

NARAYAN DASS AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

YATRA ONLINE PVT, LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY BHARDWAJ

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :         695 of 2018

Date of Institution:       25.05.2018

Date of Decision :        10.04.2019

 

 

 

1.      Narayan Dass Madan son of Gordhan Dass

2.      Kshama Madan wife of Narayan Dass Madan

          Both residents of 186-P, Sector 4, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana

3.      Vishal Kundi

4.      Sarika Kundi wife of Vishal Kundi

5.      Shayana Kundi daughter of Vishal Kundi

6.      Medhansh Kundi son of Vishal Kundi

          All residents of #211-L, Model Town, Karnal.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.      Yatra Online Private Limited, #1101, 11^th Floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram-122001 through its CEO/MD.

 

2.      Rahul Khanna, Out Bound Operations Yatra.com, Tower-D, 6^th Floor, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram-122001.   

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

3.      Manik Kapoor son of Vipon Kapoor

4.      Parul Kapoor wife of Manik Kapoor

          Both residents of Opposite Civil Line, Karnal, Haryana

5.      Kapil Saluja son of Tilak Raj Saluja

6.      Nidhi Saluja wife of Kapil Saluja

          Both resident of 98, Sector 8, Park 2, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana.

7.      Rajit Bansal son of Hukam Chand Bansal

8.      Neetu Bansal wife of Rajit Bansal

          Both residents of Sector 9A, Ram Nagar, Indra Basti, Sunam, Sangrur, Punjab.

9.      Harpreet Dhawan son of K.S. Dhawan

10.    Jatinder Dhawan wife of Harpreet Dhawan

          Both residents of I-105, Som Vihar, R.K. Puram, Delhi.  

Proforma Respondents

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Bhardwaj, counsel for the appellants.

                              

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Six of the fourteen complainants have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.

2.      Vide impugned order the complaint filed by all of them, other than Narayan Dass Madan was dismissed as not properly filed whereas only Narayan Dass Madan was awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses to be paid by the opposite parties.

3.      According to the complainants, they had purchased six nights seven days package tour from the opposite parties for holidaying in Singapore and Malaysia.  The tour was to depart on 12.06.2014 to be back on 19.06.2014.  The complainants paid the entire amount to the opposite parties who issued air tickets, visa etc alongwith itinerary.  The complainants reached Malaysian Airport in the morning of 13.06.2014 but one Adil, who was to receive them was not available there.  However, some other person Kalai, who claimed himself to be an agent/guide of Adil took them on a short city tour just to pass the time because the checking time was 2.00 P.M.  When the complainants insisted to take them to the hotel, Kalai did take them but the hotel was neither as per the itinerary nor its equivalent as promised by the opposite parties.  Kalai gave them a different itinerary of the tour programme.  The complainant contacted Eena, who agreed to take the complainants to various sites and spots, which were not covered under the itinerary.  14^th June was kept a vacant day, which was also against the itinerary given by the opposite parties.  The agent of the opposite parties took the complainants to unexplained journey and as such, the complainants could not enjoy the tour.  They were totally disappointed because of mismanagement of the opposite parties.  It was also pleaded that the complainants were taken to different hotel due to mistake on the part of the driver and when they reached there, they were treated as unwelcomed guests.  They were asked to wait for half an hour.  The buffet food was not upto the mark.  On 14^th June, the complainants were not provided sufficient time to enjoy the picnic spot on the ground that all the restaurants would be closed by 10 P.M.  When the complainants reached the restaurant, it was found closed despite the fact that they had reached there around 9 P.M.  The complainants reached Singapore where they were provided a fresh dinner different from the dinner, which was provided in India.  The arrangement at Singapore was not good and when the complainants returned home, the opposite parties assured to give voucher worth Rs.3,000/- per family.  The complainants had complained of deficiency in service with regard to visit to Malaysia and resultantly sought issuance of directions to the opposite parties to refund 50% of the package tour amount alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- per person and Rs.21,000/- as cost of litigation. 

4.      The opposite parties on being served put in appearance and filed written statement submitting that the booking was done on the website of the opposite parties.  The majority of the complainants alleged inconvenience suffered by them but the allegations were frivolous, irrelevant and without any merit. The complaint was filed by Narayan Dass Madan alone without obtaining the consent of other complainants.  In the absence of properly executed Power of Attorney, the claim on behalf of all the complainants could not be considered legal and valid one. On merits, it was contended that the deficiency, if any, was with regard to itinerary at Malaysia but the same was false, frivolous and baseless.  The delay at airport at Malaysia had taken place on account of lack of communication as Kalai and the complainants were standing at different locations.  The complainants falsely alleged that upon their arrival at Malaysia on the morning of June 13^th, the contact person was not available and they were required to wait for an hour.  In fact, Kalai upon receiving the complainants at the Airport informed them about the check in time of the hotel.  He also sought the complainants’ permission to take them on a city tour, which offer was gladly accepted by the complainants.  The hotel provided to the complainants was of the same status as promised.  The waiting time of 15 minutes in the hotel for dinner is routine and the same cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  It was further alleged that the visit to KL Tower was the only addition on that day and it was in accordance with the request of the complainants that they had not visited KL Tower during their city tour.  The vouchers of Rs.3,000/- was offered as a goodwill gesture.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      Though the complaint before the learned District Forum was filed on behalf of fourteen persons i.e. the complainants yet nothing on record was brought on the file to show that complainants No.2 to 14 ever authorized Narayan Dass Madan-complainant No.1 to file the complaint.  The said complainant did not get their signatures on the complaint.  Even no authority letter was filed in favour of Narayan Dass Madan.  As such, learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that though the complaint had been filed on behalf of complainants No.2 to 14 yet on account of there being no authorization or signatures of complainants No.2 to 14, the same was dismissed as not properly filed on their behalf.  It is true that in the instant appeal apart from Narayan Dass Madan, five complainants namely Kshama Madan, Vishal Kundi, Sarika Kundi and Medhansh Kundi have signed the Power of Attorney but despite the same, it cannot be said that they had authorized Narayan Dass Madan to file the complaint before the learned District Forum.

6.      The complainants had complained of mismanagement by a third party, which was hired by the opposite parties, on account of some communication gap and it could be said to have been caused in the tour programme of the complainants at Malaysia causing inconvenience to them.  However, no cogent evidence has been brought on record to hold that the quality of hotel, restaurant and food was not upto the mark as alleged by the complainants.  Only Narayan Dass Madan, complainant was awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses in order to meet the ends of justice.

7.      In view of the above, the State Commission finds that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.  The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

       

 

Announced 10.04.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK