CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.948/2005
MR. ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL
S/O SH. M.L. AGGARWAL
R/O 187-A, KARIAPPA MARG,
SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI
.……. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S SHREE RAJ TRAVELS & TOURS LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
B-14, CHIRAG ENCLAVE, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:03.08.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The complainant herein, Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal, has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the OP, alleging that the complainant is a permanent resident of Delhi and the OP is a public limited company having its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant further submits that he contacted the OP to arrange a tour for Malaysia-Singapore along with his family members i.e. his wife and his son. The complainant was shown the travel brochure and was told that he would not have to face any difficulty during the tour rather they would feel pleasure and enjoy the tour; and were further assured that all the formalities in respect of their VISA and both ways confirmed tickets and good accommodation during their stay and conveyance etc would be the headache of the company and that the complainant should not worry. It is submitted that on 12.6.2004, the complainant made payment of Rs.30,000/- by way of cheque no.797733 as an advance drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place and another cheque bearing no.797735 for a sum of Rs.1,09,050/- as the remaining amount, given on 17.6.2004 towards the total payment of the tour expenses of the complainant and his family. It is further submitted that the tour had commenced on 24.6.2004 and ended on 1.7.2004. As per the Hotel list of AFEB 19th June, 2004, the name of the tour leader was Ms. Sweta Desai and the complainant was told that they have to go by Thai Airways. At the time of handing over the air tickets and boarding the plane, the complainant was not told or informed by the people of the OP that the tickets of return journey were not confirmed and they were in waiting; and when the complainant and his family were in Singapore on 28.6.2004 the complainant came to know that the air tickets from Thai Airways were in waiting and are yet to be confirmed for return journey. However, the complainant was informed that the ticket from Singapore to Bangkok were OK but the same were of no use for the complainant; the complainant requested the tour leader Ms. Sweta Desai to get the tickets confirmed when she was in Singapore on 28.6.2004. It is further stated that in spite of that the team leader boarded the from Singapore to India on 1.7.2004 saying “don’t worry your flight is at 17.50 hours in the evening and you would get your tickets OK at the airport itself. The complainant tried his level best till last minute and felt helpless and disappointed but all in vain. He had no money with him to make some other arrangement on the other hand he was feeling annoyed on the behaviour and conduct of the OP. The complainant contacted the employee of the OP in Delhi and told all the problems faced at Singapore, but the reply from the OP was very disgusting and disappointing which was not expected, “The said tour has finished we are not responsible now.” It is further submitted that the complainant made arrangements for stay in some hotel and for air tickets, food and conveyance, etc. for which the complainant had to spend exrtra amount of Rs.50,000/- and could arrived in India by Air India flight. The complainant contacted the office of the OP to make good the loss which he had suffered but the officers of the OP misbehaved with the complainant and threatened and abused him. The complainant went through mental tension and physical stress which could have been easily avoided by the OP. The time loss of the complainant caused him a financial loss of Rs.2,00,000/- for which OP is liable to compensate the complainant and other members of his family. On 6.8.2004, a legal notice was also served upon the OP but instead of taking legal action against its employees and paying a compensation to the complainant, the OP decided not to respond to the notice. The complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs2,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service rendered by the OP.
The OP in its reply to the complaint submitted that it was told to the complainant from the very beginning and categorically that his return ticket from Bangkok to Delhi was not confirmed and the same is wait-listed, and it was made clear even before the booking of tickets was made and payment was made by the complainant. The complainant knew that ticket from Singapore to Delhi was wait-listed and that there is certain amount of risk involved in undertaking the journey to the extent that the complainant may not be able to get his ticket confirmed on the appointed date. The complainant had in fact enquired and verified before making the payment and undertaking the tour about the availability of the tickets and the status whether he was getting confirmed tickets or not, and in fact, the booking for the tickets was made in the presence of the complainant on 12.6.2004 and return journey tickets in Bangkok-Delhi sector fell on the category of waitlist was told to him categorically, the complainant had the option not to deposit the money at that time but the complainant wanted to undertake the journey in spite of this, and was ready to take a chance as far as waitlisted return tickets are concerned, and considering all these facts, he had made the payments for the tour. The OP tried their best whatever resources and means were available to them to get the tickets confirmed but were not able to do. It is submitted that the confirmation of ticket is not in the hands of the OP but in the hands of the airlines. It is denied by the OP that the complainant was informed only on 28.6.2004 that his tickets were not confirmed, and in fact the complainant knew all along that his ticket from Bangkok to Delhi was not confirmed. The complainant took the tour with open eyes with full knowledge that the tickets were not confirmed. The complainant has not furnished any documentary proof to the effect that he had spent Rs.50,000/- for his stay and the proof of return ticket has also not been furnished by the complainant. The return ticket which the complainant had purchased in the name of the complainant itself cost Rs.45,000/-, and that ticket has not been returned till date; and if that ticket had been returned, the OP could have claimed the amount spent on the said ticket, and it is apprehended by the OP that the complainant had sold off his earlier tickets and had purchased the new tickets out of the proceeds received from the old ones. It is submitted by the OP that the business loss claimed by the claimant is not payable as being remote, arbitrary and hypothetical and it has not been substantiated as to how the loss of Rs.2 lakhs had been caused to the complainant because no material has been produced to justify the same. It is submitted that the complainants enjoyed the tour to the full satisfaction and best facilities given to them, there is no complaint regarding the conforts and enjoyment which they got from the said tour; the services were of very high standard and quality for a very reasonable price. The complaint is an afterthought filed only to illegally extract money from the OP. Finally, the OP prays that the complaint having no merits is liable to be dismissed.
In his replication to the reply filed by the OP, the complainant has denied that the he was told categorically that his return tickets from Bangkok to Delhi were waitlisted, and that had the complainant been told that their return tickets were not confirmed and he would not have made the payment. It was assured by the OP that it was the headache of the OP to get the tickets confirmed. It is further submitted that the complainant could not enjoy the tour instead he became tensed and helpless when Ms. Sweta Desai, the tour leader also left the complainant in lurch in a foreign country. It is submitted that the OP not only caused deficient service to the complainant but also cheated and misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant also suffered financial loss on account of late arrival as he had already fixed a meeting with some foreign buyer on 2.7.04 which he could not materialize due to his late arrival and the deal with the said party had left which caused a loss of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant. The prayer of the complaint is reiterated.
The complainant filed his evidence by way of his affidavit dated 16.3.2006, in which all the facts mentioned in the complaint have been deposed on oath. The complainant has also filed written arguments condensing and summarizing the material facts and gist of his version of the story. Similarly, the OP has also filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Veer Ganju, Branch Manager, Delhi office of the OP and has deposed more or less all the facts and averments mentioned in their reply to the complaint. The written arguments filed on behalf of the OP also repeat and reiterated its version.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
We are not convinced by the stand of OP that it was told to the complainant from the very beginning and categorically that his return ticket from Bangkok to Delhi was not confirmed and the same is wait-listed, and it was made clear even before the booking of tickets was made and payment was made by the complainant. The complainant knew that ticket from Singapore to Delhi was wait-listed and that there is certain amount of risk involved in undertaking the journey to the extent that the complainant may not be able to get his ticket confirmed on the appointed date. The complainant had in fact enquired and verified before making the payment and undertaking the tour about the availability of the tickets and the status whether he was getting confirmed tickets or not, and in fact, the booking for the tickets was made in the presence of the complainant on 12.6.2004 and return journey tickets in Bangkok-Delhi sector fell on the category of waitlist was told to him categorically, the complainant had the option not to deposit the money at that time but the complainant wanted to undertake the journey in spite of this, and was ready to take a chance as far as waitlisted return tickets are concerned, and considering all these facts, he had made the payments for the tour. The OP tried their best whatever resources and means were available to them to get the tickets confirmed but were not able to do. It is submitted that the confirmation of ticket is not in the hands of the OP but in the hands of the airlines.
A person will not undertake journey alongwith his wife and son without getting the tickets confirmed. Services of OP were taken by the complainant for arranging the tour and it was duty of OP to make the things available. We are not convinced with the statements of OP that even knowing that tickets for return journey were not confirmed, still the complainant made payment for the tour. Assuming for the sake arguments, that the complainant was knowing that return tickets were not confirmed, the complainant must have been assured by OP that the tickets for the return journey will be confirmed, otherwise the complainant would not have made the payment.
It is borne out from the fact that the complainant has specifically stated that when he on 28.06.2004 when he Singapore, he came to know that the air tickets from Thai Airways were in waiting and were yet to confirmed for return journey. The complainant requested the tour leader Ms Sweta Desai to get the tickets confirmed. She contacted the Thai Airways office in “Singapore but they informed that there was no chance to confirm the waiting tickets upto 15.07.2004. In spite of that the team leader on 01.07.2004 alognwith other tourist boarded the flight in morning from Singapore to India saying “don’t worry your flight is at 17:50 hours in the evening and you would get your ticket OK on the airport itself”.
There is nothing to disbelieve the complainant. It is significant to note that the complainant has served a legal notice on 05.08.2004 detailing all the things and that notice was duly received by OP but it was not responded. It is settled law that if a notice is sent before filing of the complaint and not responded then the averments made in the notice deemed to have been admitted.
OP has taken the plea that the return tickets were not returned to them till date and if those tickets had been returned, OP would have claimed the amount spent on the said tickets and it is apprehended by OP that the complainant had sold off his earlier tickets and had purchased the new tickets out of the proceeds received from the old ones.
The legal notice dated 05.08.2004 was duly received by OP. OP should have asked the complainant about return tickets but OP kept silent. OP did not ask for return tickets. The complainant has placed on record the return tickets. In fact it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
It is admitted by OP that return tickets of Thai Airways were of Rs.45,000/-. The complainant has specifically stated that he has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- on return air tickets and hotel accommodation etc. The complainant is entitled for refund of that amount. The complainant has stated that he suffered business loss of Rs.2 lakhs on account of late arrival in India as he has fixed an appointment with some foreign buyer which could not materialise as the party has left. The complainant has placed email letter on record in this regard but he has failed to prove that he has suffered loss of Rs.2 lakhs. Hence we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards amount spent on tickets.
OP is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
