BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
C.C. No.91 OF 2017
Between :
- CHANDURI SUKANYA BABA,
W/o. C.V.K. BABA,
Aged about 72 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o. Flat No.409, Mount Santoshi Apartments,
Mayuri Marg, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 16.
- DEVULAPALLY LAKSHMINARAYANA D CHAKRAVARTHY,
S/o. D.Appa Rao,
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retired Bank Employee,
R/o. 302, Aarav Sree Radha Apartments,
H.No.17-1-388/1,
Sri Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Saidabad,
Hyderabad – 500059.
- DEVULAPALLY SITAMAHALAKHSMI,
W/o. D.L.N.D.Chakravarthy,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,
H.No.17-1-388/1,
Sri Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Saidabad,
Hyderabad – 500059.
- TEEGAVARAPU VENKATYESHWARLU,
S/o. T.Purushotham,
Aged about 77 years, Occ: Retired Bank Employee,
R/o. GA-56, SBH Colony, Saidabad,
Hyderabad -59.
- TEEGAVARAPU VANAJA,
W/o.T.Venkateswarlu,
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o. GA-56, SBH Colony, Saidabad,
Hyderabad -59.
- PARITALA VASUDEVARAO,
S/o.P.V.Rama Rao,
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired Employee of PSU,
R/o. Flat 102, Sai Lakhsmi Nilayam,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad -33.
- SANNIDHANAM SUPRABHA,
W/o. P.Vasudeva Rao,
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.Flat 102, Sai Lakshmi Nilayam,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad -33. ...Complainants
AND
Sri Mallikarjuna Tours and Travels,
Represented by it’s Proprietor,
Ummetthala Madan Gopala Sharma,
O/o. Plot No.401, Sai Ram Complex,
East Anand Bagh,
Malkajgiri, Hyderabad -500047. ….. Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainants: M/s. BMR Law Offices
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Deemed served
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
,
Wednesday the Twenty Eighth day of March
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
The case of the Complainants, in a nutshell, is that believing the attractive advertisement of the Opposite Party Tours and Travels Agency (for short, the Agency) the Complainants, being senior citizens, decided to have a Devotional tour under the name and style of ‘Ramayana Yatra’ and booked the package by making payment of necessary charges with the Opposite Party Agency. As per the proposed Tours, the Opposite Party Agency promised to take all the Complainants together, initially to Chennai from Hyderabad and thereafter to Colombo by Air on 25.02.2017 and assist them till the end of the pilgrimage tour i.e., up to 02.03.2017. As per the Complainants, despite above said promise, the Opposite Party Agency took the Complainant NO.2 to 7 from Hyderabad to Chennai in AIR INDIA Flight and asked the Complainant No.1 to reach Chennai from Hyderabad in Jet Airways Flight without anybody’s assistance and that thereafter when all the Complainants reached Chennai, they found the flight bound to Colombo was unduly delayed. They have contended that on contacting the person concerned of the Opposite Party Agency, they were told to go to Colombo at their own risk. Experiencing the unusual attitude of the Opposite Party Agency, as per the Complainants, they cancelled the tour program and returned back to Hyderabad on the next day after spending one night at the Chennai Airport. With these allegations, they sought return of the charges paid by them to the Opposite Party Agency amounting to Rs.2,91,433/-in total with interest @ 24% p.a., and also compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- each i.e., 28,00,000/- in total on the premise of the physical strain and mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Agency.
2. Despite service of notice the Opposite Party Agency did not make it’s appearance either in person or through an Advocate.
3. The Complainant No.1 has filed her evidence affidavit on her behalf and also on behalf of other Complainants and relied on the documents under Ex.A1 to A10 to substantiate the claim.
4. Perused the written arguments of the Complainants and heard their learned counsel.
5. Now the point for consideration is that:
whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Party Agency, if so, to what relief?
6. Point At the outset, it is to be noted that despite service of notice the Opposite Party Agency did not choose to contest the claim as set up by the Complainants. But even then we have to see whether the same has been duly proved by them.
7. The Complainant have filed and relied on the documents under Ex.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the Pamphlet-Cum-Advertisement of the Opposite Party Agency inviting the customers to have a Pilgrimage Tour under the name and style, “Sri Lanka Ramayana Yatra”, giving the itinerary with the charges at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per head inclusive of travel, food and lodging charges. Believing the same the Complainants, who are all senior citizens, decided to undertake the Tour for the period from 25.02.2017 to 02.03.2017 (6 days). Accordingly, the Complainant No.1 paid Rs.36,000/- in advance where as the Complainant Nos.2 to 7 paid entire amount of Rs.38,000/- each towards the package charges. Ex.A2 to A5 are copies of the payment receipts passed by the Opposite Party Agency.
8. The further case of the Complainants is that on the promise of the Opposite Party Agency, all of them assembled at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad on 25.02.2017 to go to Chennai but contrary to the promise, the Opposite Party Agency had booked different Flights for them i.e., Jet Airways Flight for Complainant No.1 and Air India Flight, for the Complainants Nos.2 to 7 and that one person of the Opposite Party Agency, though promised to accompany the Complainant No.1 from Hyderabad to Chennai, left her alone at Hyderabad Airport itself and proceeded to Bangalore by asking her to go to Chennai on her own accord. It is to be noted that the Complainant No.1 is a lady of 72 years and that remained at Hyderabad Airport while the other Complainants went to Chennai in another Flight. Somehow the Complainant No.1 reached Chennai in Jet Airways Flight. Ex.A6 to A8 are copies of the Flight Tickets.
9. The Complainants have also contended that on reaching Chennai Airport, they found there was no person from the Opposite Party Agency to guide and help them but on the other hand when they contacted the Opposite Party Agency, they were told to go to Colombo at their own risk and that the Agency would provide a guide to assist them in the pilgrimage schedule on reaching there and that the travel tickets were not even booked for their said onward journey. Under this circumstance, presumably the Complainants must have shocked with the attitude of the Opposite Party Agency and were compelled to cancel the Tour program itself and return back to Hyderabad. Accordingly they spent the night at Chennai Airport itself and on the next day morning itself took another Flight (Spice Jet) and reached Hyderabad. Ex.A9 is a copy of the set of Air Tickets dated 26.02.2017 in this regard. Ex.A10 is a copy of the information containing details of the passengers i.e., the Complainants. It also reveals that they made payment of Rs.27,433/- in total for their return journey from Chennai to Hyderabad by Spice Jet Flight.
10. It is to be noted that the Complainant No.1 in her evidence affidavit, has stated that original receipts and flight tickets were filed along with the present complaint, but the same were not found in the record. Therefore, their counsel has subsequently field a Memo dated 19.03.2018 clarifying the aspect of filing of only Xerox copies of the said documents. The said Memo has been recorded.
11. From the facts and circumstances noted above, it is crystal clear that due to the inhuman attitude of the Opposite Party Agency, the Complainants underwent physical strain, hardship and mental agony apart from financial loss amounting to, in our considered opinion, not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice and that as such the Agency has to be saddled with adequate compensation and damages apart from refund of the travel charges of Rs.2,91,433 (Rs.2,64,000 + Rs.27,433/-). In this view of the matter, the quantum of compensation and punitive damages are reasonably settled at Rs.25,000/- each to meet the ends of justice and equity.
12. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the Complainants.
13. In the result, the Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party Tours and Travel Agency to pay the Complainants a sum of Rs.2,91,433/- towards travel charges with interest @ 9% p.a., from 25.02.2017 till the date of realization to be shared equally (less Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant No.1), compensation of Rs.10,000/- and punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- each.
Time for compliance, four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 28.03.2018
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainants : For Opposite parties
Affidavit evidence of Nil
Chanduri Sukanya Baba
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainants :
Ex.A1 is the copy of Broachure.
Ex.A2 is the copy of Receipt for Rs.36,000/-,dated 19.02.2017.
Ex.A3 is the copy of Receipt for Rs.76,000/-,dated 19.02.2017.
Ex.A4 is the copy of Receipt for Rs.76,000/-,dated 19.02.2017.
Ex.A5 is the copy of Receipt for Rs.76,000/-,dated 19.02.2017.
Ex.A6 is the copy of Flight tickets (Jet Airways), Hyderabad to Chennai dated 25.02.2017 belonging to Complainant No.1.
Ex.A7 is the copy of Flight tickets (Jet Airways), Hyderabad to Chennai dated 25.02.2017 belonging to Complainant Nos.2 to 5.
Ex.A8 is the copy of Flight tickets (Jet Airways), Hyderabad to Chennai dated 25.02.2017 belonging to Complainant Nos.6 & 7.
Ex.A9 is the copy of Flight tickets (Spice Jet), from Chennai to Hyderabad dated 26.02.2017 belonging to Complainant Nos.1 to 7.
Ex.A10is the copy of information containing details of the passengers.
For Opposite Party :
Nil
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt.28 .03.2018
