State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Cox & King Limited vs Rakhi Purohit on 5 May, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/311/2016 ( Date of Filing : 09 Feb 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/12/2015 in Case No. CC/2853/2013 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Cox & King Limited Turner Morrison Building 16 Bank Street Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Rep by its Executive Officer 2. M/s Cox & Kings Ltd 22, B.M.H Complx K.H Road Bangalore - 570027 Rep. by its Executive Officer ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rakhi Purohit Aged about 43 years W/o Mr. Aseeem Purohit,residing at 1206, A Block Mantri Elegance N.S. Palya Bannergatta Road Bangalore - 76 2. Aseem Purohit Aged about 46 years S/o Mr. Sathish Purohit, residing at 1206, A Block Mantri Elegance N.S. Palya Bannergatta Road Bangalore - 76 3. Manas Purohit Aged about 19 years S/o Mr. Aseem Purohit residing at 1206, A Block Mantri Elegance N.S. Palya Bannergatta Road Bangalore - 76 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 05 May 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:09.02.2016 Date of Disposal:05.05.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 05th Day of May 2023 PRESENT Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 311/2016 ORDER
BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by OPs in CC/2853/2013 on the file of III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2015.
The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels and now we have to decide on the appeal whether impugned order call for an interference for the grounds set out in the appeal?.
The brief facts of the case would be as the appellant/OPs offered complainant Nos.1 to 3/respondents herein 10 days 11 nights Europe Tour program stating that they are very highly professionalized tour conductors, showing them itinerary, photos on their laptop and they are leading tour arrangers, had assured that their staff shall take personal care and give attention during the tenure of trip. They also assured trip shall be hazel free enjoyable including luxury stay and vegetarian food, proper transport from hotel to airport and other visiting places. The tour was booked 02 to 03 months prior to enable OPs to make proper arrangements such as travelling accommodation, flight booking etc. and in this regard complainant have paid entire tour amount in advance which has been acknowledged by them. According to complainants on 22.02.2013 they had booked Europe tour and the tour started on 11.07.2013 while they returned back on 22.07.2013. The grievance of the complainants would be, as OPs had promised in their broacher that they shall provide ride in bullet train and further promised to take level three of Elfin Tower and to provide with Jain food during their tour were failed to keep such promise and failed to arrange for travel in bullet train and forced them to take ride on ship, as such their dreams to travel in bullet train went shattered and they were disappointed, since it is not easy for them to go again on tour. The complainant alleged, OP took them to Elfin Tower and stopped at level one only and when enquired guide told that they could manage to arrange first level itself and in this way they are deprived of having sight to look from third level. Further OP failed to provide Jain food and they survived on bread and bakery products. They also alleged OP dropped at airport 08 to 10 hrs prior to departure of flight and they have to wait on road side and were forced to pay more money to hotel room and towards transportation and thereby rendered deficiency in services by OP/appellant herein and to get redressed raised a complaint before the Forum below and the Forum below on contest of Ops by receiving materials, held complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service thereby directed OPs/appellants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 24.10.2013, till realization and awarded Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days, failing which the aforesaid amount shall interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of order till realization. It is this order being assailed in this appeal by OPs contending that the Forum below failed to appreciate materials on record in right perception has completely over looked the contentions of OPs to note that group was to travel to Paris through Euro tunnel but it was taken by water way to Paris due to situation beyond control of Opposite parties. Further contended though complainants have failed to demonstrate kind of inconvenience caused to them had to travel by waterway instead of the Euro Tunnel and OPs have shown all the 06 countries mentioned in the itinerary was overlooked and the fact that OPs had offered to refund the difference in price for level 03 approximately 06 Euro per person with rate of exchange charged to complainants at Rs.82/- which is Rs.1,476/- for 03 persons was not considered by the forum below.
Let us come to examine the enquiry file from which it could be said no dispute that OP Nos.1 and 2 being service provider offered 10 days 11 nights Europe Tour started on 11.07.2013 which came to be completed on 22.07.2013. It is found as per Booking Form 2013 marked as Ex.B1, complainants booked interest free non refundable amount (per person) on 22.02.2013. The members are Mr.Purohit Aseem, Mrs. Purohit Rakhi and Mr.Purohit Manas and they are aged 45, 42 and 18 respectively. Their diet is recorded vegetarian. Place of issuance of booking is Bengaluru. They are residence of Bengaluru City. This Booking Forum 2013 issued in their name with terms and conditions. As per Annexure-B3 -
ITINERARY MAY CHANGE AT ANY TIME We reserve the rights alter, amend, change or modify the tour package and itinerancies before or during the tour. We will make reasonable efforts to notify you promptly of such change/events sufficiently in advance during booking or prior to departure of the tour.If such changes/events occur during the tour, our tour manager or local representative will inform you of the changes on the spot and we solicit your full co-operation in accepting such circumstantial changes.Therefore, no grievance regarding any itinerary/service change which we are constrained to make will be entertained from the tour participants during or after the tour.
Please not that promotional offers may have different terms and conditions which will be in addition to these terms and conditions and the requirements of the booking deposits, payments, deadlines and mode of payment may be defined in such promotions which will be over and above these terms and conditions.Such changes may be necessitated due to factors beyond our control such as Force Majeure events, weather conditions, traffic problems, overbooking of hotels/flights, cancellation/re-routing of flights or railway, closure of/restricted entry at a place of sightseeing etc.Generally, we try to avoid dates when big Fairs, Exhibitions and other events are held in certain cities as hotels are fully booked several years ahead.If you have travel on such dates, you may have to stay in alternate hotels or hotels in other cities.Due to airline's requirements the points of entry and exit in a country may change.We may operate more than one coach per departure date and may for convenience reverse the direction or amend the itinerary.Change in itinerary may also be required or necessitated on account of actions, inactions, defaults or condition of tour participants in the group.
We will make reasonable efforts to keep the overall package of services unchanged.However, we shall not be liable to refund any amount or pay any compensation/damages on account of any change in itinerary in case the alternate arrangements made are materially superior as compared to the ones described in the Brochure.We may charge extra for the same at the time of booking or in the course of the tour.
It is not in dispute as per invoice they have paid Rs.2,45,829/- which is on par with Euro 3,220/- towards tour price well in advance. It is found from Annexure-K that the sightseeing covered in London on day 02 were as per itinerary already shared with complainants at the point of sale which included a guided panoramic highlight tour of London before proceeding Paris through euro tunnel. Also as goodwill gesture they would be refunding the differential cost for level 03 which approximately 06 Euro per person with rate of exchange charged to you at Rs.82/-, the refund would of Rs.1,476/- only. The OPs also informed the complainants as gesture of their goodwill to offer with vouchers worth Rs.9,000/- in total which can be used against any of their tour packages valid till 31.08.2014. The complainants have also placed Invoices, Service Report, Copy of Legal Notice and Reply thereon along with three photographs taken on 07.21.2023 at 18:59, 19:00 and 19:21 to show as to how they waited along with huge luggage waiting in airport. It is not in dispute that their tour program arranged by OPs, booked on 22.02.2013 commenced on 11.07.2013 ended on 22.07.2013 and in between what they have suffered has been raised in their complaint was considered in Toto by the Forum below as directed OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 24.10.2013 and pay Rs.5,000/- from the date of complaint till realization for rendering some deficiency in service has to be examined by us, since it is also found from the enquiry as OPs/appellants have shown their goodwill gesture offered to compensate approximately 06 Euro per person which they have worked out at Rs.1,476/- and further as gesture of their goodwill offered gift voucher worth Rs.9,000/- which can be used against any of their tour packages valid till 31.08.2014. Thus, these two offers were made, in our view in so far as the first offer is concern to some extent could be said appreciated to resolve the issue but in so far as second offer is concerned considering the evidence on record from the enquiry file as Ops have fixed a validity date which could be said impracticable for the complainants to opt for using gift voucher within such period was rightly rejected by complainants. However, question would be from the enquiry held by the forum below as the complainants sought for a direction against the Ops for Rs.3,05,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment was simply accepted without appreciating not only nicety of the issue involved in the complaint but the far reaching effect of the award for some amount of rendering deficiency in service. In other words forum below ignored the doctrine of proportionality in considering the case as alleged is not appreciated by us. In our view for not providing some facility as alleged in the complaint or for rendering deficiency in service for not arranging for bullet train and not providing Jain food and not making arrangements to drop them in airport on time making them to wait for 8 to 10 hours awarded even exceeding the actual price of the tour program along with interest @ 18% p.a. definitely does call for an interference.
According to complainants they have suffered physically and mentally as their dream of seeing Europe hazel free had shattered due to deficiency in service. It is true that OPs have admitted as to their lapses to some extent and have shown their good gesture to compensate to such an extent was not at all appreciated by the Forum below. According to OPs they were shown all the places as per the itinerary and on the contrary complainants failed to place any other evidence that they did not shown places which they said as per itinerary. They say tour was conducted in the professional and well manner with all best possible services provided as promised. It is not in dispute that itinerary was signed and submitted by complainants to OP on 22.02.2013 well before departure time have understood as to the itinerary and they never raised any grievance about the itinerary designed and places of sight seeing scheduled. According to OPs/appellants the term "Panoramic" means a situation or topic viewed from a distance. The Panoramic view of London as per the itinerary had been conducted by their tour manager. In the panoramic city tour, the complainants viewed the sights and monuments from the coach as he is drive past. OP had not promised any visits or photo stops to complainants, only a guided panoramic view was promised and the same can be seen in the itinerary. However, a photo stop at Buckingham Palace was done for the entire group by the OPs. The group was to travel to Paris through the Euro Tunnel; however the group was taken by waterway to Paris due to the situation beyond the control of the OPs. Thus, all these particulars put forth were not at all denied by the complainants. Accordingly to Ops the complainants never made such allegation immediately after returning from the tour. It is for the first time in the month of September, through legal notice allegations were leveled against OPs. It is found from the enquiry that when the group travels through Eurotunnel, the bus goes inside the train which passes through a close tunnel. However, when one travels through the waterway, they get to see the surrounding places which is not possible when one is travelling through the tunnel. In our view, this cannot be acceptable, since OPs being service provider had promised and they have failed to provide complainants to take them in bullet train, which amounts to rendering deficiency in service to that extent, for which complainants are to be held entitled for compensation.
Admittedly, it was the group tour as such the allegation of complainant that they had to survive on salad and fruits as they requested to provide vegetarian food was not rendered could not be acceptable, since, enquiry reveals that the tour manager confirmed that complainants were provided with vegetarian food mentioned in the itinerary and was of good quality and there was variety in meals, since it was a group tour in which food would be of vegetarian and non-vegetarian and Omni and they have to choose of their taste. It is not that vegetarian foods were not at all available where the group alighted to have their food. In such circumstances, complainants cannot except that they should have been taken to pure vegitarial hotel when a group of tourist was there on the program. If it is shown all group members were opted vegetarian foods then matter would have been different as such the allegations of complainants that they were not provided with vegetarian food and they were made to starve could not be acceptable and the forum below failed to appreciate the evidence in right perception. As could be seen from the enquiry it was a group tour and OP had provided the best available food and made good arrangements having both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.
In so far complainants dropping at airport at around 2:45pm and check in started at 6:15pm and other allegation that they were made to wait for hours together are bound to happen while in conduct of international tour program was not properly appreciated. If complainants were not satisfied with their tour program on account of some lapses on the part of Ops in not arranging tour to Paris through Euro Tunnel and if they were not been taken up to the three level of Elfin Tower and showed the London city in the panoramic view but not in a proper manner for which Forum below could have awarded some amount of compensation and not as directed at Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 24.10.2013 till realization.
In the above view of the matter this Commission on revaluating the materials on record, considering the admission of OPs/appellants herein for not providing with bullet train or for some lapses on their part as they have offered to refund Rs.1,476/- for 03 persons and as good gesture offered a gift voucher for Rs.9,000/- are to be held entitled for some amount of compensation not either as offered by the Ops or as directed by the Forum below but to suit the lapse admitted and as found in the enquiry.
In the above such conclusion we are of the view that each of the complainants are to be held entitled for Rs.25,000/- each which would meet ends of justice to both parties. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the order dated 29.12.2015 passed in CC/2853/2013 on the file of III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru and directed OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- each along with interest @ 08% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and do pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days from the date of order. Accordingly, impugned order stands modified.
Remit back the LCR to the District Commission.
The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to Commission below for needful.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER