State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cox And Kings(I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Kishan Kumar Gupta, on 7 January, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 07-01-2008 Appeal No. A-07/814 (Arising out of Order dated 30-08-2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, New Delhi Barracks, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Case No.1313/05) M/s. Cox and Kings(I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Indra Place, H-Block, Through Connaught Circus, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, New Delhi-110001. Advocate Versus 1. Kishan Kumar Gupta, Respondents 2. Mrs. Shanti Devi, 3. Ms. Charu Gupta, 4. Ms. Parul Gupta, E-246, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral) On account of multifarious deficiencies on the part of the appellant who is a world tour operator which are detailed below due to which pleasure trip turned into misery trip, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 30.08.07 passed by the District Forum, directed to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service and Rs. 7,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The impugned order has been mainly assailed by way of this appeal on the ground that the package tour of 9 nights and 10 days covering London, Brussels, Paris, Switzerland and Germany was availed by the respondents for a consideration of Rs. One lac and after having availed the package and visited all those places as promised by the appellant through its brochure, the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- appears to be unreasonable and on the higher side and also tantamounts to the appellant refunding the cost of the tour itself.
Apart from this, the counsel for the appellant has also assailed the order for assuming certain assurances given by the appellant to the respondents which did not form part of the terms and conditions of the package.
3. In order to appreciate the ground of challenge and the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order need to be culled out, in brief.
4. According to the respondent in February/March 2005, appellant Cox & Kings issued a large advertisement in all leading newspapers about the Cox and Kings European experience tour of 9 nights and 10 days package covering London, Brussels, Paris, Switzerland and Germany giving details of all that would be available on this tour and also provided printed brochures in response to it.
Respondent-1 & 2 approached the appellant to take this trip and give an advance of Rs. 30,000/- of the trip with the passport and completed all the formalities on 16.02.05 about the tour that was to leave Delhi on 08.05.05. A copy of the itinerary was provided by Cox and Kings. The full payment of the tour expenses was made subsequently well in time.
5. That thereafter there was no response from the appellant as to the developments. Respondents had to contact them and they took the plea that visa for France is available only 10 days prior to departure and only then the tickets will be booked.
The respondents were assured that they would in any case get the tickets 2-3 days prior to departure.
Respondents were assured that they would commence by Air India flight at 6.45 a.m. on 08.05.05. The tickets and passports were not given to the respondents on visiting the office of the appellant. On 06.05.05 and 07.05.05, the respondents were told that the scheduled Air India flight has been cancelled and the respondents would now have to travel by Gulf Air leaving Delhi at 8 p.m. on 07.05.05 itself and the respondents were asked to report at IGI Airport at 5 p.m. On enquiry the respondents learnt that the Gulf Air via Muscat and Abu Dhabi takes 15 hours instead of 9 hours by Air India flight. They later learnt that Air India flight was not cancelled and it in fact left at the scheduled date and time and the cancellation by appellant was nothing but a lie to save fare to themselves as the Gulf Air was cheaper than Air India.
6. That on arrival at Heathrow Airport, no representative of the appellant was available. As per itinerary, the respondents were told that International Brittania Dockland was booked and when they went to the hotel they found that there was no such booking. On frantic efforts, a person of Cox and Kings arranged for taxis to take them to another hotel Jurys Kensington. They reached the hotel at 10 a.m. and were made to sit in the lobby till 2 p.m. In this way the respondents were harassed and further they were told that tour guide will reach after 12 hours. The tour leader was highly incompetent who did not know anything about tours, rules, reading maps and places to be visited and how to organize a group and to even plan. He frankly admitted that he was never a tour leader. The bus driver could not understand even the basic English and was not able to communicate with the tour leader due to which the respondents reached Brussels at 7.10 p.m. the place which was 45 minutes away. The respondent had very little time and could not see the tourist attraction place and when they reached back they found the tourist bus and the tour guide missing for more than half an hour and the respondents were stranded. At Antwerp where they were to give dinner the two could not locate the restaurant till 10 p.m. It was not an Indian restaurant and as per the brochure the dinner was to be served at the hotel dining hall as far as possible. Same situation continued for next three days and the respondents missed Sienna river cruise in Paris. Some members of the group had paid extra for the deal. They also missed shopping at Les Galleries, Lafayette and the City tour of Paris. The guide was not available for taking the tour to the restaurant and the hotel.
The respondents had to miss Disneyland and the guide offered instead to take them to Eiffel Tower Level 3. the alternative excursion was also missed.
The tour was taken in a local bus on the city tour and Les Galleries, Lafayette after which the regular bus had to drive them to Switzerland. The group was waiting since 7 a.m., the time given to them. They were later told by the guide that the bus was booked somewhere else. The tour went in other bus. The tour was not taken to Paris and shopping and the tour was taken straight to Switzerland. In Switzerland instead of promised 4 star hotel, the tour party was provided a very poor hotel. The tour party was treated shabbily.
7. That before the District Forum, the appellant admitted that there have been some lapses as well as changes in the scheduled programme and due to certain reasons, the schedule visits/sightseeing, shopping etc. were curtailed by them.
8. Denying the allegation that the appellant had not provided promised & assured services, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions:-
(a) That it is not true that appellant had informed the respondents that the flight of Air India AI 111 had been cancelled.
However, it is true that the respondents were booked on the Gulf Air flight departing on 8.00 p.m. on 7th May, 2005. However, it is not true that the respondents were informed about their traveling on the Gulf Air flight on 7th May, 2005. The appellant states that the respondents were kept informed from time to time that depending upon the carrier, they would have to leave Delhi at such time as would be communicated, however, they would reach London on 8th May, 2005, the first day of the tour as described in the Tour Brochure.
(b) As regard the airport representative of the appellant not being there to receive the respondents in fact transport arrangements had been made for the tour participants arriving at Heathrow by Gulf Air.
As such appellants representative was very well present to meet the respondents at the airport and to escort the group members to the hotel. It is unfortunate that this service was missed by the respondents. However, when those tour participants reached the hotel, the taxi expenses incurred by them were refunded to them.
(c) As regards the hotel arrangement it is not correct to say that the respondents were informed that they would stay at Hotel International Britannia Dockland. The Annexure-6 to the complaint attached by the respondents was given to them only as an indication and it was at the time of booking. It clearly states that the hotels are subject to change without prior notice. The respondents before leaving India were informed that in London they were booked at Jurys Inn Kensington.
As the respondents had missed the airport pick-up, when they contacted appellant, taxi was arranged to pick them up and take them to the appointed hotel. Appellant stated that it has been clearly noted in the brochure that check-in is after 14.00 hrs. This is apparent from the tour itinerary of day one, copy of which has been annexed to written version and marked as Exhibit-3. As regards the arrival of the tour manager, it is pertinent to point out that the sightseeing programme on the tour commenced on day 02 and the concerned tour leader had arrived on the earlier night and therefore it was as per the needs of the itinerary and the timing of his arrival had no bearing on the day 01 of the tour.
(d) That Mr. Zarir Vazifdar is an experienced tour escort who has lead tours to Europe prior to working as the tour manager for the tour of the respondents and it is not true that he did not know anything about the aspects of the tour like rules, map reading, the places covered by the itinerary and how to manage a group. As regards the issue relating to advising the tour participants about arranging lunch on their own on the day when the group traveled to Brussels appellant pointed out that during the morning briefing the tour leader had repeated and reiterated that on that day lunch was not included in the meal plan.
The brochure clarifies this as the meal plan of the day shows only (B, D). It is further necessary to point out that at Tower Bridge, the tour leader once again advised the group that those who were interested could buy a lunch and gave the group time for the same. It is denied that the tour leader informed the respondents that he was visiting the places to be covered by the itinerary for the first time.
(e) That the driver of the long distance coaches have to pass stringent tests before they are given licenses to drive public transport in Europe. They have to know how to read maps and locate the destinations. It will not be out of place to mention that the coach provided to the group of the respondents had a GPS (Global Positioning System) and one cannot make a mistake about locations and destinations with such system available. In light of this it is denied that the driver was unable to locate restaurant locations. The group was taken to Brussels and the coach was parked near the Grand Place. The group was taken for sightseeing. However, as the sightseeing was required to be done in a hurried manner, the appellant had voluntarily offered compensation to the respondents vide their letter dated 20th June, 2005. The appellant states that the said note has no meaning as admittedly Mr. David Morris took over the reins from Mr. Zarir Vazifdar on 12th May, 2005 and all the sightseeing allegedly missed was on days prior to his joining the tour.
(f) That quality restaurants serving Indian food are few and far in Europe and the restaurant used for the respondents in Antwerp is extremely popular with Indian tourists. It is true that it took some time for the coach to reach the same as it is in a narrow lane. The statement of the respondents that not on a single day they were served food in the hotel dining hall is misleading. The meal plan on the tour was clearly explained vide the tour brochure. The list of the places where meals were served is enclosed (Exhibit -5) and mere perusal of it will indicate that all means as per contract were served on the tour.
(g) It is denied that there was any blunder committed over next three days of the tour as alleged or otherwise, which resulted in missing of sightseeing. Due to slow moving traffic, the group arrived late in Paris. The delay was further aggravated due to unexpected heavy traffic in the city. As such the group reached the hotel after lunch at about 6.00 p.m. The tour leader even then tried for the River Seine cruise for the group members who had availed the Lido Optiona however, the traffic was bad even on that day on that route and the cruise was missed. During the travel within the city, the guide Ms. Sylvette did explain the relevance, importance and significance of various buildings and monuments, which are covered in the City Tour. On the next day, after completing the Disney tour the tour leader returned to the hotel and picked up those who had not opted for Disney and visited the Eiffel Tower. The clients were offered that the group would be taken to the third level instead of the first level to which they were entitled to in full and final settlement of whatever services were not exactly to their satisfaction. The respondents, however, refused this offer and were taken to the 1st level as per itinerary. The appellant thereafter offered the refund to the respondents on this count, which was rejected by them. It is further pointed out that the guided sightseeing tour in Paris had been arranged on an alternate day which for reasons beyond the control of appellant could not be done. As a goodwill gesture and in full and final settlement, on the next day the group including the respondents was offered sightseeing tour of Bern, besides the regular programme for the 8th day i.e. Zurich and Schaffhausen.
However, the same was refused.
Though the tour participants could not visit Les galleries Lafayette, they had several shopping opportunities as per itinerary. The said gallery is a place for shopping like many others and that no prejudice was caused to the respondents in any case by not visiting the same.
(h) It is true that Mr. Acharya had offered the respondents and other group members that in light of the fact that city tour of Brussels and Paris was not to the satisfaction of the appellant, the group would be taken to the third level of Eiffel Tower by paying the additional charges instead of the first level to which they were entitled to as per itinerary.
However, the offer was rejected by the group.
(i) That even on the group reaching India a refund offer was made to the respondents which was rejected by them. Mr. Acharya had really made efforts to find out if a visit to Les Galeries Lafayette and a city tour was possible. He explained about the restriction of driving hours on the long distance coach i.e., as per the ECC rules long distance coach drivers are not permitted to work beyond given number of hours on a day or in a week.
In the circumstances, the special visit to the above places as mentioned above was required to be arranged by a separate local coach. However, due to things beyond control of appellant and the time constraints, the same did not materialize.
(j) It is not true that the respondents were taken to Switzerland by subterfuge as alleged or otherwise. It is denied that the respondents were promised 4 star hotels. The position relating to hotels was clearly explained vide various documents and the hotel list annexed by clients allegedly showing the list of intended hotels shows Hotel /Victoria Hasliberg as the hotel in Switzerland.
(k) The sightseeing included in the main tour which was not done to the liking of the appellant was at Brussels and city tour of Paris and the one included in the optional tour was the River Scine Cruise.
This was due to traffic problems and the appellant had offered Eiffel Tower third level visit and the sightseeing of Bern in lieu thereof.
9. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the terms of the agreement between the parties to show that the allegations of breach of terms is culpably false and not tenable. Relevant extracts of the terms of agreement are as under:-
Scope of Activity :
Cox and Kings (I) Private Ltd. Is marketing and/or coordinating tours under its brand name DUNIYA DEKHO for group tours and TRAVEL CLUB for group/individual tours. We are travel and holiday organizers only. We do not control or operate any airline, neither do we own or control any shipping company, coach or coach company, hotel, transport, restaurant or any other facility or service mentioned in this Brochure. Though we take care in selecting all the ingredients in your holiday, we can only select and inspect them. As we have no control in running of them, we cannot be responsible for any delay, improper services provided by any agency, airline, transport, hotel, any provider of services, for any injury, agency, death, loss or damage which is caused by the act or default of the management or employees of any hotel, airlines, shipping companies, cruise, coach owners/coach operators/tour operators who are the Companys independent contractors.
10. As regards the charge of itinerary changes given the learned counsel averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in terms of clause Itinerary Changes which is as under:-
Itinerary Changes:
We may often operate more than one coach per departure date. For the comfort and convenience of our passengers we will sometimes reverse the direction, or slightly amend the itinerary.
We will try to advise you of these amendments, prior to the start of the tour or on tour. In the event that the Client misses a part of the Sightseeing tour or any such tour due to delay on his part then he will not be entitled to claim refund of the same.
11. Over and above, the liability clause which is most significant for meeting out the challenge of deficiency in service entitling the consumer for an amount of compensation as to the loss or injuries suffered by him as prescribed by Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The said clause is as under :
Liability:
In the event of the Company exercising its rights to amend or alter any tour or holiday advertised in the Brochure/itinerary after such Tour or Holiday has been booked, the Client shall have the right;
- Any death, personal injury, sickness, accident, loss, delay, discomfort, increased expenses, consequential loss and/or damage or any kind of theft howsoever caused;
-
Any act, omission, default of any independent Contractor or other person or by any servant or agent employed by them who may be engaged or concerned in the provision of accommodation, refreshment, carriage facility or service for the client or for any person traveling with him howsoever caused;
-
The temporary or permanent loss of or damage to baggage or personal effects howsoever caused including willful negligence on the part of any person;
-
Loss of baggage by the airlines/coach/cruise/train;
-
Overbooking of seats by the airline;
-
Failure on the part of airline to accommodate passengers despite having confirmed tickets or change or route;
-
If in the event that the Client is booked on a particular airline and the said flight is over booked/cancelled for whatever reason and the Client is not allowed/able to board the flight, the Client shall not hold the company responsible for the same and no claim whatsoever can be made by the client against the company for refund or compensation.
The Company shall not be responsible and/or liable for any damages caused to the Client due to reasons beyond the control of the Company(Force Majeure/Vis Majeure).
In any case, no liability on the part of the Company arising in any way out of this contract in respect of any tour, holiday, excursion facility shall exceed the total amount paid for the tour holiday, and shall in no case include any consequential loss or additional expense whatsoever.
12. Other clauses as to the meals and hotels were as under :-
Meals:
There are pre-set menus provided on the tour.
The meal and the type of meal is clearly indicated if available, in the brochure. We. However, reserve the right to change the meal arrangement, if circumstances make it necessary to do so. Unlike an airline, we cannot process for a special meal, nor can we guarantee a special diet for customers if applicable. In the event that the Client wakes up late and misses breakfast and in the event that the Client is out on his own and reaches late and misses dinner, then no claim can be made by him for the meal which he has missed and not utilized.
Hotels:
On DUNIYA DEKHO/TRAVEL CLUB(GROUP TOURS) Tours, you will be out sightseeing most of the time and hence we have taken care to select hotels which are comfortable whilst keeping cost down. The list of hotels selected for each place are set out in the price grid.
Keeping in mind the itinerary, we take great care to select the locations of hotels, which are chosen both for their comfort and value for money. In Europe, hence depending on the day today itinerary, your hotel may be confirmed either in the city or away from the city centre.
Most hotels do not have air conditioners or fans. All hotels are twin bedded(in Europe) and in keeping with European standards are comparatively small. Single rooms are much smaller than twin-bedded rooms. A double room has a queen-size bed and a twin room has two separate beds. Requests for double rooms will be subject to availability and in cases when a double is not available, we will provide you with a twin room.
i) Lastly the conditions of travel mentioned in the brochure are significant and cannot face the charge of deficiency in service as alleged by the respondent for purpose of paying compensation. These are as under :
Conditions of Travel:
The Client will have to strictly follow the Tour Program and return to India as per the validity of the air ticket. There shall be no refund, if the client fails to join the group at the commencement of the tour, or joins the group later or leaves the group before culmination of the tour. It shall be noted that for all purposes, it shall be the responsibility of the Client to reach the place of commencement of the Tour and register with the representative of the company at the appointed place, date and time. In case if a client along with his family is compelled to discontinue the tour due to any reason whatsoever including illness, death or loss of passport or any travel documents, no claim shall be entertained for refund of unutilized services. Even if a client is unable to reach the place of commencement of the tour due to any reason whatsoever including loss of baggage or loss of travel documents, his booking shall be treated as no show on the tour and 100% cancellation charges will be levied. If a client avails pre-tour services or part thereof, or the air tickets(cost of which is included in the main tour cost) but fails to join the group for the main tour at the appointed place, or cancels the tour after using the air tickets or pre-tour arrangements or part thereof, it shall be treated as no show and there will be no refund whatsoever for the unutilized pre-tour or main tour services.
13. Ld. Counsel contends that since all these terms and conditions contained in the brochure were duly signed by both the parties, they are governed by these terms.
14. Further that the allegation of the complainant that Disneyland sight seeing tour was abandoned and in its place the guide took them to Eiffel Tower third level is incorrect, though the District Forum has accepted it as correct allegation, whereas the respondent in the complaint averred that the Paris representative of the appellant Mr. Acharya promised them that from now on their tour would go fine but they had to reduce their time at the optional trip to Disneyland.
15. We have accorded careful consideration to the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. In our view the averments of the respondent that the Paris Representative Mr. Acharya promised them that from now on their tour would go fine but they had to reduce their time at the optional trip to Disneyland does not mean that respondent was taken to Disneyland.
16. Complainant only stated that appellant promised them that now onward the tour would go as per schedule but they did not take them to Disneyland. According to the respondent sensing their frustration/aggravation of the previous day, Mr. Acharya said, as a compensation, he would take them to Eiffel Tower Level III and meet their demand for change of tour leader but only if they signed a letter stating that this was the final and complete settlement of all the grievances till then. In these circumstances Mr. Acharya showed clear refusal to do anything. Mr. Acharya also had the impudence of lying to Ms. Sunita, the Switzerland representative of the appellant that the group did not do Eiffel Tour Level III because they could not decide which level to go and so said they would do Level 1 that day and Level III the next day and thus duped the respondents.
17. Similarly the contentions of the appellant that full payment was made subsequently and not well in time has no substance as the entire payment was paid a day before the commencement of the tour i.e. on 06-05-2005 and if there was any delay of payment within 45 days from the date of booking, the same was deemed to have been condoned. Had the full payment not been made before commencement of the tour the appellant would not have taken the respondent on the tour.
18. After close perusal of the terms of the brochure we find that the appellant has not performed its part of contract as per schedule printed in the brochure. Finding of facts returned by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity.
As per brochure appellant was required to take the tour to all the promised sightseeing and also give opportunity to the respondent to see the city and make shopping of their choice.
As a matter of fact the appellant committed breach of term of the contract right from the start of the tour. As per information given to the respondent the tour was to leave by Air India flight by 6.40 A.M. whereas they took the tour party by Gulf Air which was to leave at 7.00 P.M. Though they represented that the Air India flight was cancelled but no such flight was ever cancelled. Had they informed that the respondent would be taken by Gulf Air there was no point of the respondent having reached the Airport at 6.40 A.M. the scheduled time for Air India flight. The whole day of the respondent was wasted. The mental agony, harassment and physical discomfort suffered by the respondent was immense. Respondent waited from 4.00 A.M. in the morning till 7.00 P.M. in the night, furthermore, Gulf Air flight took 15 hours to reach Muscat in the morning whereas Air India takes hardly five hours. It appears this was done to save money under the pretext of flight of Air India having been cancelled.
19. Further no guide of the appellant was available to guide the tour party. When the respondent along with other passengers checked in the hotel printed in the brochure they were shocked to learn that no booking had been done in that hotel and they were left stranded and were entirely on the mercy of the staff of the appellant who was highly inexperienced and had no clue of any training as a Tourist Guide. So much so the person who was assigned the job of Tourist Guide did not know any of the locations where tour party was to be taken. They were at the whims and caprice of that person. Again sometimes the bus was not there and sometimes the guide was not there. The respondent along with other tourists was forced to travel in the city tourist bus.
On day 4 they were to visit Disneyland but it was cut short by their Paris representative who was interested in taking them to Eiffel tower which was missed on the previous day. Even if they were taken to Disneyland the duration for such a well known place of interest was so short that it was entirely non-yielding visit. On day 5 the tourists were to be taken for shopping at Galleries, Lafayette but to their utter shock they were not taken to these places. They were rather shoved in a local bus and taken to Switzerland. When they protested and agitated as to their mental agony and harassment and the uselessness of their visit the bus driver along with the tour leader Mr. David Moris threatened them that they would get all of them arrested by the Police in foreign land for creating nuisance and rioting and did not stop the bus and practically hijacked them to Switzerland.
20. Whenever any person undertakes to take such a tour it is almost lifetime tour as the expenses involved are considerable , very high and if any kind of deficiency or inadequacy or imperfection or shortcoming in the performance of tour occurs at every step right from the day of commencement of the tour and continues during the whole duration of the tour, the mental agony, emotional sufferings, harassment, physical discomfort the person suffers are unfathomably. The quality and standard of service as promised by the tour operator has to be tested on the anvil of deficiency as defined by section 2(1)g) of the Consumer Protection as under:-
deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
21. It was not a case that the respondent had taken a tour up to Jaipur and due to shortage of time, mismanagement of the tour, missed few places of tropical interest and therefore he could visit them again. It was European tour of 9 nights and 10 days covering London, Brussels, Paris, Switzerland and Germany. The entire schedule had gone haywire and the passengers were rushed with feverish haste to see some of the places and skipped other places and even without having been given any time for shopping.
22. It was for such conduct and acts of service provider that the Supreme Court has called upon the District Forums and Commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act to award adequate compensation to the consumers for the sufferings suffered at the hands of the service provider to vindicate the strength of law. The observations of the Supreme Court made in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65 are quote worthy and are as under:-
The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.
It acts as a check on the arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct, the authority to pay compensation and also direct recovery from those found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour.
23. Taking over all view of the matter and the agony and sufferings suffered by the respondent whose pleasure trip turned into a misery trip, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as to the quantum of compensation which was determined on the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
Merely because the cost of the tour was a little less or more is of no relevance. Interests of consumer have to be protected at all costs and are paramount as for every element of the suffering the consumer has to be compensated.
24. Foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal in-limine being wholly devoid of merit.
25. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
26. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
27. Announced on 7th day of January, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member JJ