Tripura

West Tripura

CC/22/2016

Dr. Debmalya Majum & Dr.Rimi Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Officer, Cox and Kings Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. K. Roy, Mr.U.S.Singha.

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 22 of 2016

Dr. Debmalya Majumder
S/O- Sri Bipul Majumder,

Dr. Rimi Paul,
W/O- Dr. Debmalya Majumder,

Both are residence of 
Ker Chowmuhani, Ramnagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.                 ....…...Complainant.

      VERSUS

1. The Executive Officer,
Cox and Kings Ltd.,
Turner Morrison Building 16 Bank Street,
Fort Mumbai- 400001.

2. Mr. Pradyut Das,
Store Manager, Cox and Kings Ltd.,
11 Harish Thakur Raod,
Krishnanagar, Near Magnet Club,
Agartala, Tripura.                    .........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Koushik Roy,
                          Sri Udai Sankar Singha, 
                          Advocates.  

For the O.P.             : Sri Utpal Das,
                      Advocate.

    JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 03.10.16

J U D G M E N T
            This case arises on the petition filed by one Debmalya Majumder against the Executive Officer of Cox and Kings  Ltd. and Mr. Pradyut Das, Store Manager, Cox and Kings Ltd. Petitioner's case in short is that he and his wife made contact with the Pradyut Das, Store Manager of the Cox and Kings, Krishnanagar, Agartala. Being service provider he promised to arrange for the trip for Singapore, Malaysia on payment of Rs.1,59,200/-. Accordingly they went to Malaysia by flight and have to wait for 7 hours and went to Grand Imperial Hotel. They have to wait for 7 hours in Singapore airport.  Bad  accommodation was provided in hotel which was not a 3-Star hotel. They were not allowed to see Petronas Twin Tower at Singapore. No food was provided when going to Kaulalumpur from Singapore. The Honeymoon trip of the petitioner failed flat with such bitter experience.     O.P. promised for stay in Singapore & Kaulalumpur 6 days 5 nights but actually tour go short before 2 days and they had to come back. Petitioner claimed  refund of the amount and also Rs.55,000/- for harassment. Petitioner claim Rs.1, 71,000/- for deficiency of service by the O.P.

        O.P. appeared, filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that there is arbitration clause &  all terms and condition accepted by the complainant. The case before the consumer court is not maintainable. Above all the claim is barred by territorial jurisdiction. As per terms and conditions the decision of the Cox and Kings will be final in such dispute. Courts, Forums, Tribunals has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.  Booking condition was accepted. Complainant enjoyed the tour. The claim is baseless. Therefore, O.P. prayed for dismissal of this petition. 
        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
        (II) Whether there was deficiency service by the O.P. in tour program and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?
    
        Petitioner produced photocopies of Passport, letter, correspondence, advocate's notice, reply postal receipts. Also produced the statement on affidavit of the complainant and another money receipts, boarding pass Exhibit- 1 series. 

        O.P. produced authority letter, terms and condition booklet including booking form, Feedback Form, handover letter, Tour Itinerary letter, Exhibit- A series. O.P. also examined one witness, Pradyut Das, store Manager of Franchise Cox and Kings.

        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.
        Findings and decision:
         Complainant side in their evidence stated that they had to wait for 7 hours in the Singapore Airport. They were not allowed to visit the James Mosque and also inside the famous Twin tower. For this they claimed total amount Rs.55,000/-. Again they claimed Rs.50,000/- for pain agony and sufferings. In the written objection O.P, did not explain the reasons for 7 hours delay in the airport. Representative of the O.P. is supposed to receive the complainant in the airport and make arrangement for their hotel accommodation. There was terms and conditions and both the complainant and staff of the O.P. signed in the terms and conditions. The company reserved the right to alter, amend and change, modify the tour program and itineraries. But in this case tour program was not changed.  Service complaint notes were given in annexure 'C' by different passengers. But what was the response of the petitioner not given. One Mahajan noted that ''Hotel in Singapore not good. Service very poor.'' In the tour itinerary first day in the Twin trip The world first Nonoctournal Zoo' was to be seen, 2nd day- Sentosha Island is to be seen. O.P. produced some documents and also statement of affidavit of Pradyut Das. In the statement of affidavit nothing stated about the cause of delay and waiting for 7 hours in the Singapore Airport. It is only stated that contact number was given. But Sim card at Singapore was not provided. So, without sim card it is not possible to communicate  with the tour manager and the person who was supposed to receive the petitioner at airport. For that they had to wait for 7 hours and were thrown into inconvenience. As per terms and conditions the O.P. was not under obligation to show inside the James Mosque.  The tourist are to enjoy photo Stop only. So, the allegation that complainant failed to visit the James Mosque because of deficiency of service is not correct as it was not enshrined in the terms and conditions. Another complaint is that the hotel was not of 3-Star category where the petitioners were allowed to stay at Singapore.  As per terms and conditions the hotel should have facility like  mini bar, pay television channel. It is not written that 3 Star hotel is to be provided. So, it can not be said that there was deficiency of service but from the comments other tourists it is revealed that hotel was not of good quality where they had to stay for 3 days 2 nights. 
        It is transpired from the evidence produced by both the parties that petitioner was harassed as persons to receive them did not attend them on arrival at Singapore airport. Though telephone number was given but Sim was not provided for communication at Singapore. Staying in the airport for 7 hours is definitely harassment. It is deficiency of service by the O.P. For those deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
        It is also transpired from the evidence on record for good quality hotel was not provided at Singapore. Petitioner had to stay 2 days their with pain. For this sufferings petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
        Nothing produced before us to support that there was any other deficiency of service. Petitioner signed in the terms and condition and can not claim more than the facility provided. However, petitioners are entitled to get Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation. 
        In this case petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of this court which were earlier decided. O.P. No.2 Pradyut Das, the Store Manager of Cox and Kings, has Branch office at Agartala  goodwill of Cox and King is extended to Agartala. Cox and Kings Travel company is doing business at Agartala and therefore it was decided by this court earlier on 01.07.16 that the court has jurisdiction. This consumer Court can decide any matter beyond the Arbitration Act as a additional remedy.
        Considering the  documents evidence produced before us we are of the opinion that  there was some deficiency of service by the Cox and Kings.  O.P. No.1 and 2 running business at Agartala and we consider that petitioners are entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as compensation Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Both the points are decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

            In view of our above findings over the two points this case is partly allowed. Petitioners are entitled to get back Rs.25,000/- from the O.P. Both O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount to the petitioner. We direct both the O.Ps to refund Rs.25,000/-to the Petitioners. If the amount is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.   
         
                   Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.