State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Girikand Travels Pvt.Ltd Thru Its ... vs Shri.Dattatray Hanmant Desai & Ors on 2 March, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal no.A/17/629
M/s.Girikand Travels Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at
Girikand House, 759/9, B
Bhandarkar Institute Road,
Deccan Gymkhana Road, Pune-411004.
Through their Authorized Signatory
Mr.Akhilesh Vishwas Joshi ..... Appellant
Versus
1. Dattatray Hanamant Desai
R/o. Wathar, Tal Karad, Dist. Satara
2. Sou.Jyoti Hanamant Desai
3. Akhilesh Dattatray Desai
4. Avinash Dattatray Desai
5. Hanamant Baburao Desai
6. Anjani Hanmant Desai
7. Dadaraje Anandrao Desai
8. Dipali Sambhaji Dhage
Respondent Nos.2 to 8 are r/o. Wathar,
Taluka Karad, District Satara.
9. Suresh Bhanudas Pujari
10. Shahaji Yashwant Shelke
11. Malati Shahaji Shelke
12. Jayraj Shahaji Shelke
13. Dipak Bhimrao Todkar
14. Subhangi Dipak Todkar
15. Aakansha Dipak Todkar
Respondent Nos.9 to15 are
r/o. Tambawe, Tal. Walawa,
District Satara.
16. Krishnath Eknath Chavan
17. Harhala Krishnath Chavan
18. Supriya Krishnath Chavan
19. Pratik Krishnath Chavan
20. Amruta Rajendra Chavan
21. Suhas Krishnarao Pisal
22. Madhavi Suhas Pisal
23. Aadwait Suhas Pisal
Respondent Nos.16 to23
are r/o. Koparde, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
24. Sandip Shivaji Yadav
1
25. Sunita Sandip Yadav
26. Aanwesha Sandip Yadav ............Respondents
Respondent Nos.24 to 26 are
r/o. Kasarshimbe, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
27. Amrut Kakaso Kumbhar
28. Shubhangi Aamrut Kumbhar
29. Jayant Amrut Kumbhar
30. Vedant Amrut Kumbhar
Repondent Nos.27 to 30 are
r/o. Karve, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
31. Sangram Ankush Jagdale
32. Smita Sangram Jagdale
33. Samrudhi Sangram Jagdale
Respondent Nos.31 to 33 are
r/o. Malakapur, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
34. Rahul Dayanand Kalukhe
35. Sarika Rahul Kalukhe
36. Rajanil Rahul Kalukhe
Respondent Nos.34 to 36 are
r/o. Chachegaon, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
37. Mohan Dnyandev Chavan
38. Ratnaprabha Mohan Chavan
39. Mrunmayee Mohan Chavan
40. Shivraj Mohan Chavan
Respondent Nos.37 to 40 are
r/o. Koparde, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
41. Vidhyadhar Jaywant Yadav
42. Lalita Kishor Pawar
Both r/o. Karve Naka, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara.
43.Megha Ranjit Patil
R/o. Koparde, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara. .......Respondents
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
PRESENT: Mr.Rhishikesh Ganu-Advocate along with
Mr.Yogesh B.Jadhav-Advocate for appellant.
None present for respondents.
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Heard Mr.Rhishikesh Ganu-Advocate along with Mr.Yogesh B.Jadhav- Advocate for appellant. None present for respondents.
2First submission of learned advocate for appellant (opponent) was that opponent was deprived of filing written statement and accordingly order proceeding without written version of opponent was passed on 09/12/2015 by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara. It appears that opponent had preferred revision petition no.63/2016, which was heard on merits and it was dismissed by the State Commission on 26/10/2016. The said order which appears based on Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in the matter of Dr.J J Merchant & others v/s. Shrinath Chaturvedi in Civil Appeal no.7975 of 2001decided on 12th August, 2002 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 of 2013. State Commission had rejected revision petition filed by the appellant as found without merit. The impugned order attained finality. That being so, legal position remains that Learned Trial Forum proceeded without written statement of appellant (opponent).
It was a collective complaint filed by 43 aggrieved tourists, who had undertaken a trip through M/s.Girikand Travels Pvt.Ltd. Grievance of the complainants was that after the tour to Delhi Agra, Mathura, they were staying in Hotel Dazzel at Agra. On 08/06/2015 when they proceeded towards Mathura at about 8 a.m. and after visiting Krishna Mandir at about 11.30 a.m. they had proceeded by bus arranged by the opponent to reach New Delhi Airport. Their journey till Airport of New Delhi lasted till 6.30 p.m. The grievance of the passengers (tourists) was that this happened due to puncture of the tyres at about 12.30 p.m., then again bursting of tyre at 1.45 p.m. (13.45) and then again puncture had to be repaired at about 3.45 p.m. Therefore, for 152 kms distance, they had to travel from 11.30 a.m. till 6.30 p.m. and then they had to check in till they were issued boarding pass. During this time, representative of opponent Mr.Vinayak Waghchoure switched off his phone and the opponent did not bother to engage proper bus in good roadworthy condition to reach from Mathura to New Delhi Airport. No Manager of the opponent was accompanied with the complainants and there was no arrangement for the tourists to spend 3 alternatively. In the result, passengers (tourists) had to travel by Akbar Travel India so as to catch the flight on 09/06/2015 at 3.30 a.m. by Delhi-Pune Jet Airways, which accommodated only 19 passengers, while rest of the passengers had to reside in the nearby hotel and spend sum of Rs.15,000/- each. In total sum of Rs.5,61,409/- had to be spent by the passengers (tourists). On account of these circumstances, Learned Forum below held that there was deficiency in service on the part of opponent travel company and therefore, the complainants were held entitled for refund of expenses in the sum of Rs.5,61,409/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08/06/2015 till realization and also sum of Rs.1000/- payable as compensation to each of the tourists and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.5000/- (payable collectively). This judgment mentioning the facts and circumstances therefore appears well reasoned, just and proper and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, we dismiss the appeal with additional costs of Rs.5000/- payable to respondents/ complainants collectively.
Pronounced on 02nd March, 2020.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] President [Dr.S.K.Kakade] Member Ms 4