State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Jayanti J.Patel @ Others vs M/S. Raj Travels & Tour Limited & Others on 23 March, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.108/2005 Date of Filing:- 08/09/2005 Date of Order:- 23/03/2009 1) Shri Jayanti J.Patel, 2) Smt.Sheela J.Patel, Both Residing at 12, Balkrishna Niwas, L.Napoo Road, Matunga, Central Railway, Mumbai-400 019 3) Shri Kanti B.Patel, 4) Smt.Nisha Kanti Patel, 5) Kumar Aakash K.Patel, 6) Kumar Nimit K.Patel, (Minor by guardian father No.3) Complainant Nos. 3 to 6 are residing at 7th Floor, Amarnath Towers, Varsova Village, Andheri(West), Mumbai ... Complainants -Versus 1) M/s. Raj Travels & Tour Limited, 2) Shri Lalit Seth, M.D. M/s. Raj Travels & Tour Limited, Both at Chowpaty View Building, S.V.P.Road, Opp.Sukh Sagar, Opera House, Mumbai-400 007 ... Opponents Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member, Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member. Present :- Complainant No.1 present in person Mr.Vinay Vyas, Adv.for the Opponents O R D E R
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This complaint has been filed by the six complainants against M/s.Raj Travels & Tours Limited and its Managing Director alleging deficiency in service in the tour undertaken by the complainants.
2) The case of the complainants may be summarized as under :
3) The complainants are inter se relatives. The complainant No.1 Shri Jayanti Patel is advocate and senior citizen and complainant No.2 Smt.Sheela Patel is also senior citizen and wife of the complainant No.1. Others are family members of the complainant No.1 and 2. They all together joined Grand Europe Tour conducted by O.P. travel agency scheduled to depart from 10/5/2005. They paid total amount of Rs.9,51,999/- plus visa charges of Rs.18,600/- plus Rs.2,646/- for the six persons and they were assured by the travel agency that the tour would be conducted to the utmost satisfaction of the tourists. But according to the complainants, the O.P. travel agency was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice throughout the tour and they have listed various deficiencies in the complaint.
i) The complainants pleaded that the tour was scheduled to depart from Mumbai for London at 19.30 hours on 10/5/2005. Reporting time was three hours prior to departure. But O.P./travel agency delivered tickets at 15.15 hours on 10/5/2005 whereas they were required to report at airport at 16.30 hours. Delay in delivering tickets caused to all complainants tremendous mental stress and anxiety.
ii) The complainants further pleaded that there was considerable delay and long wait at Abu Dhabi airport roughly for six hours and flight landed at London Heathrow airport behind schedule and as such entire touring party was exhausted and they required rest before getting ready for sight seeing. They should have been put in Hotel as promised. But they were required to sit in the bus immediately and to spend three hours roaming in the bus and then they were lodged in hotel at London at 12.00 in the noon.
This was done to save the hotel charges for the day at the cost and discomfort of entire touring party.
iii) The bus employed for taking them to various places at London was not having toilet facility. So, few members from their party were required to sit in the bus under pressure of natural call. Air conditioning of the bus was poor and for two days touring party faced suffocation. The driver was continuously giving threats that he would stop the bus in the middle of journey since he completed eight hours of driving. Thus, put all the tourists into needless mental tension and agony.
iv) It was found that the tickets booked for return journey from Abu Dhabi to Mumbai were not confirmed and the travel agency suggested that they should travel to Dubai and take plane from Dubai for their return to Mumbai. Escort of the agency did not accompany the complainants to Dubai to make arrangements for their air journey from Dubai to Mumbai. So, the complainant No.1 and 3 and Complainant No.5 were required to make several hectic trips to the office of Gulf Air continuously of three days spending Rs.6,500/- for taxi fare and they had spent three sleepless nights as Gulf Air told them that tickets would confirm only after ten days. So, for deficiencies in service on the part of O.P./travel agency they had to incur extra cost of Rs.12,000/- besides being subjected mental harassment and agony.
v) On the last day i.e. on 3/6/2005, when departure of flight was on 11.30 hours, complainants were told to take flight at last minute at 11.10 hours and as such Complainant No.1 and 2 both senior citizens were required to run almost a kilometer to take the flight at the risk of their lives. The complainants pleaded that O.P./travel agency acted in most callous manner with the complainants by giving them six tickets marked O.K. when in fact according to Gulf Air, tickets were not confirmed from Abu Dhabi to Mumbai flight.
vi) According to the complainants, throughout the tour, the O.P./travel agency did not make proper and faultless arrangements for their flights, hotel stay, food, sightseeing etc. and they are guilty of gross deficiency in service and the complainants were subjected to mental stress, agony, loss of working days and uncalled for unexpected expenses. The O.P./travel agency not only cheated the complainant but had taken them for a ride. The complainants felt that their time, energy and money had been wasted because they could not derive any satisfaction in sightseeing.
4) The complainants therefore sent notice dated 30/6/2005 through their counsel and called upon O.P./travel agency to pay Rs.30 Lakhs by way of damages/compensation, Rs.43,040/- for their stay in hotel, mobile charges and taxi fare and Rs.21,246/- towards visa. They also additionally claimed refund of Rs.9,51,999/- paid to the O.P. being tour charges. It is pleaded by the complainants that the O.P./travel agency had orally offered a meager amount of Rs.35,000/- in the meeting called by the responsible officers of the O.P. Hence, the complainants prayed that O.P. should be directed to pay sum of Rs.40,16,000/- with cost of the complaint. The complainants field documents and affidavit in support of their complaint.
5) In the written statement, Chairman and Managing Director of M/s.Raj Travels & Tours Limited denied the inconvenience caused to the complainants. According to him, the complaint is misconceived, devoid of merits and not maintainable in law. The O.P. pleaded that it is operating international tours for the last 30 years and it has gained sterling reputation and goodwill in the field of tour and travels due to its customer satisfaction ratio. It has been awarded many awards for the services they rendered in the field by the government and many other organizations. It pleaded that the complainants were part of Grand Europe Tour-2005 organized by it. The said tour was for 19 nights and 20 days commencing on 10/5/2005 from Mumbai and was ending on 30/5/2005 at London. The tour was conducted strictly as per brochure printed by O.P. and it was subjected to terms and conditions printed in the brochure and the registration form. The tour cost of Grand Europe Tour was Rs.1,89,999/- for adult person and Rs.1,19,000/- for a child below 12 years. Their agent Suraj Sukhija of M/s.Santej Travels never promised Dubai package to the complainants because it was subjected to O.P. operating tour to Dubai and in 2005 O.P. did not operate any organized group tour to Dubai. At the time of booking, the complainants were given massive discount of Rs.1,61,994/-.
6) The complainants insisted that their Grand Europe Tour should conclude with visit to Dubai on their return journey. Hence, M/s.Santej Travels arranged for return journey of the complainants from Dubai to Mumbai and also arranged for hotel accommodation in Dubai for all the complainants with dinner for one night and charged only Rs.10,000/- per person extra for making those arrangements. The said Dubai extension was after completion of Grand Europe Tour and did not include any promise for lunch in Dubai.
The O.P. pleaded that in the Grand Europe Tour between 10/5/2005 to 31/5/2005 a group of 50 passengers were provided with all facilities, meals, and accommodations as promised in the itinerary. Entire tour was conducted in hassle free and smooth manner and all passengers were very happy at the end of the tour except the complainants and one family of Shri Ajay Agarwal who opted to go to Dubai on their return journey to India. The O.P. further pleaded that all the tickets given to the complainants were duly confirmed tickets having O.K. status even for journey from Dubai-Abu Dhabi-Mumbai sector as per P.N.R. system of Gulf Airlines. These tickets were issued as per confirmation on the airline system which is fully computerized. The O.P./travel agency pleaded that complainants have no grievance for the entire tour programme of Grand Europe. They have grievance only in respect of last segment of the tour i.e. Dubai-Abu Dhabi-Mumbai sector which was not part of their Grand Europe Tour.
7) The O.P. further pleaded that tickets of the tour were delivered well in advance at the residence of the complainants and intimation about confirmed tickets of Grand Europe Tour was already given to all the complainants. The O.P. pleaded that there was apparent time gap for the connecting flight from Abu Dhabi to London and complainants were informed about this time gap and if there was any delay of flight from Abu Dhabi to London the tour operator can not held responsible for such technical delay.
8) The O.P. pleaded that checking time in any hotel in Europe is 12.00 noon and tour leader Shri Mayank Joshi smartly utilized time and took the passengers to visit Windsor Castel which was shown as extra item to all the passengers of Grand Europe Tour. This was done with the consent of the majority of the passengers on the coach and at 12.00 in the noon the passengers were duly lodged in the reserved hotels. The O.P. denied that the coach employed in the tour was not having toilet facility as alleged. The driving hours and timings of driving the coach is governed strictly as per regulations of European Union. So, whole the tour was conducted by complying with the regulations of the European Union. The passengers of the tour were reminded every now and then to be punctual and to reach near the coach at the given time. However, no threats were given by the tour escort or the driver of the coach as alleged by the complainants which allegedly caused mental tension and agony to them.
9) The O.P. pleaded that since the Grand Europe Tour ended at London, nobody escorted complainants to their Dubai sector trip. The complainants were given confirmed tickets having O.K. status. Hence, whatever inconvenience was faced by the complainants was beyond their control and complainants should have grievance against Gulf Air and not against the O.P. because O.Ps Grand Europe Tour terminated at London. So, the O.P. is not responsible for whatever inconvenience caused to the complainants while they were staying at Dubai or were returning to India by flight from Dubai or Abu Dhabi to Mumbai. The O.P. pleaded that it doesnt know that the complainants tickets were cancelled by Gulf Air and why they were so cancelled. The O.P. therefore pleaded that the claim of the complainant against it is imaginary and without any substance. The compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and in fact there was virtually no deficiency in service on its part. The O.P. therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost. The O.P. filed certain documents and affidavit in support of its written statement.
10) The complainants filed rejoinder disputing the averments made by O.P. in the written statement.
11) We heard submissions of Complainant No.1 in person and Mr.Vinay Vyas, Adv. for the O.Ps
12) On the basis of these pleadings, following issues arise for our determination. The issues and our findings thereon are as under :
ISSUES
1) Whether the complainants proved that O.P. is guilty of deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint ?- No
2) What order ? As per final order.
FINDINGS
13) Issue No.1 :- We are finding that the grievances made by the complainants in their complaint and affidavit are not genuine one. They are simply concocted one. As far as delivery of air tickets are concerned the grievance of the complainants is that they were delivered at their house at the eleventh hour. But, on telephone everything was explained by Mr.Suraj Sukhija and tickets and travel documents were delivered to Smt.Nish Patel at the house of the complainant well in time. Smt.Nisha Patel was constantly in touch with Mr.Suraj who had informed her that all the tickets of the complainants were confirmed one and they would be delivered at her residence and the very fact that they could undertake the tour with effect from 10/5/2005 would mean that there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. about delivery of air tickets and travel documents. So, we are finding that the grievance in this behalf made by the complainants is illusory and without any substance.
14) Further grievance of the complainants is that when they reached London from Abu Dhabi they were not immediately taken to any hotel but they were taken on sightseeing of Windsor Castel. That was extra item shown to all passengers on reaching London. This was done with the consent of all the passengers of the coach. This was done by the tour leader in the best interest of the passengers and at 12.00 in the noon they were lodged in reserved hotels. So, we are not finding any deficiency in service on the part of tour operator in this behalf. The contention of the complainants that they were inconvenienced and they were lodged in hotel at London belatedly is without any substance.
15) Third grievance made out by the complainants in their complaint and affidavit is also appearing to be without any merit. The complainants mentioned in their complaint that coaches provided for Grand Europe Tour was not having toilet facility. For that there is specific denial made by the O.P. in the written statement and affidavit. The coach was having all the facilities but passengers were required to comply with regulations of European Union. Drivers and bus operators are also subjected to strict compliance of European Union regulations. The toilet residue had to be disposed of at the selected places only as per regulations. Therefore, if there were some restrictions in use of toilet that was reasonable one and in consonance with the European Union regulations applicable to the drivers and bus operators. The O.P. denied that driver or tour leader ever threatened passengers in a manner complainants mentioned in their complaint. So, according to the O.P. the complainants were not at all subjected to mental tension and agony as alleged. The passengers were not punctual and there may be occasions where tour was slightly adjusted or rescheduled but that doesnt mean that ipso facto complainants were subjected to mental agony and harassment by tour operators.
16) Main grievance of the complainants is about their inconvenience caused to them at Dubai. We have read the pamphlet of tour programme. Tour programme mentioned that tour concludes at London and passenger has to depart to the airport to board his flight back to India. When tour conducted by O.P. concluded at London and when complainants opted to return India via Abu Dhabi and Dubai and when in the course of their stay at Dubai they were told that their tickets were not confirmed by Gulf Airline though Raj Tours & Travels had given them confirmed tickets for their return journey from Dubai to Mumbai via Abu Dhabi, the fact that the complainants were required to face some difficulty, inconvenience, hardship would not mean that O.Ps were guilty of deficiency in service when their Grand Europe Tour concluded at London. They owed no responsibility or liability for return journey of the complainants in Dubai-Mumbai sector. That tour was undertaken by the complainants on their own. No accommodation was assured. No escort was given to the complainants by Raj Tours & Travels. They were to manage their affairs on their own in Dubai or Abu Dhabi.
So, if they faced some difficulty or inconvenience at the hands of Gulf Air despite O.K. status of their confirmed tickets for Dubai-Abu Dhabi-Mumbai return journey, the complainants have to blame to their sad lot (misfortune) if they suffered any inconvenience and hardship but they can not be permitted to throw blame or allege deficiency in services against Raj Tours & Travels/the O.P. herein for whatever inconvenience they had to suffer during their stay at Dubai or during their return journey from Dubai-Abu Dhabi-Mumbai. Therefore, we are finding that even this grievance of the complainants can not prompt us to hold that O.P./travel agency is guilty of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainants. As such, on the whole, we are finding that the complaint as filed by the complainants is without any substance. Hence, we pass the following order.
O R D E R 1) Complaint stands dismissed. 2) Parties are left to bear their own costs. 3) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. ( Smt.S.P.Lale ) (P.N.Kashalkar ) Member Presiding Judicial Member Malve/-