State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. FA/09/131

DATE OF FILING: 24.3.2009

DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 16.06.2009


OPPOSITE PARTIES/APPELLANTS


1) Cox & Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Having office at 6, Little Russel Street

Floor forth Block, P.S. – Park Street

Kolata – 700 071

2) M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Having Head office at Turner Morrision Building

16, Barik Street, Port, Mumbai – 400 023

3) The Managing Director

M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Having office at Turner Morrision Building

16, Barik Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023



COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER



Shri Babulal Singhi

S/o Late Dharam Chand Singhi

Resident of Rishikesh, Flat No.1E

1/1, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue

P.S. – Karaya, Kolkata – 700 019



BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER



FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT : Mr. S.K. Basu, Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT/O.Ps. : None appeared.





: O R D E R :


HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT





This appeal was filed against order dated 25.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I in Case No.94 of 2006 whereby the complaint was allowed and the OP1 was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per person for the complainant and his wife as compensation and Rs.1,000/- only as litigation cost.

The facts stated in the complaint are that complainant respondent and his wife availed a tour through the OPs appellants for visiting Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and paid Rs.1,10,280/-. Before departure the complainant found that their tour schedule was curtailed without prior intimation and without his consent denying the hotel facilities to the complainant and his wife at Singapore on 30.1.2005 after 12 hrs. After returning to India at the end of the tour programme the complainant brought the said inconvenience to the knowledge of the OPs by a notice and in reply thereto though a consideration was assured acknowledging the notices, but no further communication was ultimately sent. In the complaint grievance was further made of cutting the tour shorter by one day.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant. No one appeared at the time of hearing for respondent.

The first contention of the appellant is that though the complainant alone filed the complaint but compensation has been directed for the complainant and his wife and, therefore, the same is illegal. We have considered the nature of the complaint as stated in the complaint itself. We find that the complainant has made categorical statement of the tour programme of the complainant and his wife, the sufferings of both during the tour and consequential agony of both. In paragraph 14 it has been categorically contended that the complainant and his wife suffered mental trace, humiliation and physical distress and hence entitled to the compensation with costs. Admittedly the complainant and his wife undertook the tour. The grievances complained of apparently affected both. Clear pleadings have been made of such suffering of both the persons. In the circumstances in a proceeding of inquisitorial nature when the complainant, who admittedly paid the consideration for the tour of himself and his wife, only because the wife has not joined as complainant does not affect the proceeding itself. The complainant alone paying for himself and his wife and both suffering the consequences for the irregularities alleged, there is no irregularity on the part of the Forum below in directing compensation for both. From the order itself it is apparent that the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount in terms of the said order.

With regard to the deprivation of hotel accommodation the same has not been disputed by the appellants. It is true that the appellants have alleged that such deprivation was decided even before the tour commenced but the date of its communication has not been proved. But from the case of the complainant we find that complainant was not intimated of the same early and they came to know before the departure for the tour. It appears that immediately after coming back the complain was made to the OPs and admittedly having not responded on merit though acknowledged the notice by the complainant, the OPs failed to dispute the said complain. In such circumstances when the appellant is unable to show that such curtailment/deprivation of the hotel facilities in Singapore was either upon notice or with consent of the complainant, direction for compensation for such deprivation cannot be held irregular.

In above view of the findings and no other point having been argued by the appellant, we do not find any ground for interference and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.







(S. Majumder) (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT