State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cox & Kings Ltd. & Ors. vs Rajiv Kumar & Ors. on 18 August, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 18.08.2017 First Appeal No. 916/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 466/07) In the Matter of: 1. M/s Cox & Kings India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: Turner Morrison Building, 3rd Floor, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai-400023 Local Office: Indra Place, H-Block, Connaugh Circus, New Delhi-110001 2. Mr. Peter Kekar Director, M/s Cox & Kings India Pvt. Ltd. Turner Morrison Building, 3rd floor, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400 023 3. Ms. Urrshila Kerkar Chief Executive Officer, M/s Cox & Kings India Pvt Ltd. Turner Morrison Building, 3rd Floor, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400 023. 4. Mr. Arun Sen Director M/s Cox & Kings India Pvt. Ltd. Turner Morrison Building, 3rd Floor, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 5. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Senior General Manager, M/s Cox & Kings India Pvt. Ltd. Indra Place, H-Block, Connaugh Circus, New Delhi-110001 6. Mr. Piuush Mathus General Manager- Operations, M/s Cox & Kings Pvt. Ltd. Indra Palace, H-Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 7. Mr. Sandeep Joshi, General Manager, M/s Cox & Kings India Pvt. Ltd. Indra Palace, H-Block, Connaugh Circus, New Delhi-110001 ......Appellants Versus 1.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, S/o Mr. Pawan Kumar, R/o E-28, Sector-55 Noida, U.P.
2. Ms. Shivani Khanna W/o Mr. Sanjay Khanna J-244, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
3. Mr. Salil Kumar, S/o Mr. Pawan Kumar, R/o E-28, Sector-55, Noida U.P.
4. Mr. Rohit Sapra S/o Mr. Roshan Lal Sapra R/o E-30, Sector-55, Noida U.P.
5. Mr. Gautam Jhanjee S/o Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jhanjee, R/o 604, Devika Apartments, Plot No. 16, Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
6. Mr. Sunil Molhotra S/o Lt. Mr. D.B. Malhotra R/o 155, Sector-28, Noida U.P. .......Respondents CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President
1. This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act') wherein challenge is made to order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 466/07.
2. A complaint u/s 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that he had booked a tour with appellant/OP i.e. 'Bharat Dekho' originating at Srinagar and terminating at Srinagar, for the period from 17.06.2006 to 24.06.2006 for a total cost of Rs. 1,49,723/-. The requisite payment was made to the appellant/OP. However, on 27.05.2006 the appellant/OP had informed the respondents/complainants that a further amount of Rs. 54,000/- was required to be deposited for the afore stated travel package as there was some calculation mistake. Thereafter, the appellant/OP reduced their demand from Rs. 54,000/- to Rs. 28,000/- without offering any explanation for the reduction. Due to such arbitrary and baseless demand the respondents/complainants had cancelled the tour. It was alleged that vide email dated 01.06.2006 the appellant/OP agreed to refund Rs. 1,12,292.25/- out of the total amount of Rs. 1,49,723/-. It was alleged that the appellant/OP had also pressurized respondents/complainants to sign a pre-typed receipt stating that a sum of Rs. 1,14,041/- was to be paid to the respondents/complainants as a full and final settlement. The appellant/OP further claimed that an amount equivalent to 25% of the tour cost was to be deducted as the respondents/complainants had cancelled the tour of their own and no fault could be attributed to the appellant/OP. It was alleged that appellant/OP offered 4 cheques in full and final settlement of the case. It was alleged that respondents/complainants deleted the words 'full and final settlement' while receiving tour cheques issued in the name of respondents/complainants. It was alleged that appellant/OP had stopped the payment of the said four cheques on 04.01.2006. It was alleged that aggrieved by the conduct of appellant/OP, respondents/complainants served a legal notice dated 25.07.2006 to appellant/OP. The appellant/OP sent a reply dated 29.07.2006 alongwith four pay orders for Rs. 1,14,041/- after deducting 25% of the tour cost. It was alleged that respondents/complainants had also incurred a loss of Rs. 7090/- which they had incurred towards cancellation of air tickets. Ultimately, respondents/complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum praying that appellant/OP be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 49,195/- alongwith a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation.
3. The case was contested by appellant/OP before the Ld. District Forum by alleging that there was some shortfall in the amount charged from respondent/complainant. However, the appellant/OP had informed respondents/complainants that payment of shortfall amounting to Rs. 28,000/- was entirely on the discretion of respondents/complainants and non-payment of the said amount would not affect the travel schedule and that the services promised by appellant/OP would not be prejudicially affected as appellant/OP would absorb the said shortfall. However, the respondents/complainants cancelled the tour. It was alleged that the appellant/OP informed the respondents/complainants that as per the relevant rules, the appellant/OP was entitled to deduct 25% of the deposited amount as cancellation charges. It was alleged that respondents/complainants sought to delete the words 'full and final settlement' from the cheques offered by appellant/OP and were informed by appellant/OP that if respondents/complainants made any alterations in the final settlement letter then the cheques would not be handed over. Thus, the appellant/OP had to give 'stop payments' instructions to the bank for the cheques.
4. The grievance of the appellant/OP is that even though Ld. District Forum accepted the stand of respondent/complainant, yet it awarded exorbitant and disproportionate amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and damages of Rs. 15,000/-.
5. It is contended that it was not the case where the Ld. District Forum could have awarded compensation. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP.
6. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents/complainants to argue the matter. Perusal of order sheet shows that even for the past two dates of hearing also none had appeared for the respondents/complainants.
7. Following relief is granted by the Ld. District Forum in favour of respondents/complainants.
"We direct OP to release payment by fresh cheques, if not already done, within interest of 9% from date of issue of cheques and also pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for damages and pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986."
8. It may be mentioned that the respondents/complainants have already received 75% of the payment i.e. 1,14,041/- . It is admitted position that respondents/complainants have already received 75% of the payment by way of pay order i.e. Rs. 1,14,041/- towards tour costs after deducting 25% of cancellation charges. The same is evident from reading para 15 of the complaint. Even counsel for appellant/OP states that the aforesaid payment has already been made to respondents/complainants. Further, reading the written statement and evidence by way of affidavit of the appellant/OP, before cancellation of tour by respondents/complainants, appellant/OP had informed that it was entirely at their discretion to pay the shortfall. It was also clearly told that even if shortfall was not paid, there would be no change in the services. Ld. District Forum has ignored the same while granting relief.
9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the compensation amount stands reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- and litigation costs stands reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Court.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President