State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.T. Bheem Reddy vs 1.Chariot World Tours Ltd., on 13 June, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION :: HYDERABAD.
(ADDITION AL BENCH)
CC 199/2018
Between:
1.T.Bheem Reddy, S/o.Late T.Papi Reddy, Aged : 61 years, Indian, Occ:Advocate, R/o.H.No.3-5-20, 1st Floor, Opp.Nava Jivan Women's College, Ramkoti, Hyderabad - 500 001, Telangana State.
2. Dr.Challa Reddy Krishna Vema, W/o.T.Bheem Reddy, Aged : 55 years, Indian, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3-5-20, 1st Floor, Opp. Nava Jeevan Women's College, Ramkoti, Hyderabad - 500 001, Telangana State. ... Complainants And
1.Chariot World Tours Ltd.(CWTL) Rep. by MD., Mr.Shanbaug, HO and RO at Malleshwaram (HO & RO), 223, 2ND FLOOR, GR Arcaade, 14th Cross, Sampige Road, Opposite to New Shanthi Sagar Hotel, Malleshwaram , Bangalore -03.
2. Ms.Gwendolyn Rodrigues, Tour Manager, Chariot World Tours Ltd.(CWTL) HO and RO at Malleshwaram (HO & RO), 223, 2ND Floor, GR Arcaade, 14th Cross, Sampige Road, Opposite to New Shanthi Sagar Hotel, Malleshwaram , Bangalore -03.
3. Mr.Dasam Sandeep, S/o.Dasam Ramesh, Franchise Agent of Chariot World Tours Ltd.(CWTL), R/o.H.No.1-7-16/14/1, Plot No.25, Reddy Enclave, Near Sree Bakery, Temple Alwal, Tirumalgiri, Bollarum, Hyderabad-500 010, Presently residing at : SRT-253, Jawahar Nagar, Opp.Sahal Bakery, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-500 020, Telangana State. Opp.parties.
2Counsel for the Complainants : M/s.M adan Gopal .
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : OP.1 - Party in person.
OPs.2 & 3 - set exparte.
QUORUM: HON'BLE, SRI V.V.SESHUBABU MEMBER - (J) & HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, M EMBER - (NJ) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TW ENTY THREE.
******* Order :(Per Hon'ble SM T R.S. RAJESHREE, M EMBER - (NJ))
01). The complaint is filed u/s.17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act on 24.9.2013 seeking direction against opposite parties 1 to 3 as follows:
i. to refund extra amount of Rs.90,000/- along with accumulated interest of Rs.7,200/- @24% p.a. from 8.5.2018 to 7.9.2018 and thereafter to continue to pay at the same rate of interest till the date of realization to the complainants;
ii. to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant no.1 and Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant no.2 towards damages for causing inconvenience, untold hardship and mental agony adversely affecting their health;
iii. to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainants towards damages for loss of image in the society and among the co-tourists; and iv. to award costs of Rs.1 lakh .
02). The briefly stated facts are that opposite party no.1 is the Limited Company engaged in overseas tours and services having its registered office at Bangalore, Karnataka, opposite party no.2 is working at opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 is franchise agent at Hyderabad. The complainants with an intention to plan a tour to Europe, have made enquiries on the internet for the said service providers and opposite party no.3 having came to know about the intention of the complainants had approached the complainants and Mr.P.R.Balaram Reddy in the month of November,2017 and discussed for booking of the Europe 3 Tour and also informed that one Mr. Veera Reddy, Advocate had earlier availed the said services of Europe Tour from the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.1 had finalized the tour cost as Rs.2,60,000/- per person which goes upto Rs.5,20,000/- for two persons and had sent the tour programme sheet accepting to book air tickets for the complainants and also for P.R.Bal Ram Reddy and his wife. As per the programme it was agreed to book tickets for the complainants from Hyderabad to Doha, Doha to London and return journey from Paris to Doha, Doha to Hyderabad and trusting the opposite parties, the complainants booked the said Europe tour along with Mr.P.R.Balram Reddy through opposite party no.3 at Hyderabad and the complainants have paid in total a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- through cheque, online transfer and cash. The payments were as under:
Rs. 1 lakh on 1.1.2018 through cheque no.777011 , vide Canara Bank, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad through A/c.No.0649101041978 belonging to the complainants' youngest daughter;
Rs.98,000/- on 9.4.2018 through RTGS- Canara
Bank, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad through
A/c.No.00649101011381;
Rs.2 lakhs through cash on 16.4.2018 on the
request of Mr.Jai Kumar, who is employee of
opposite party no.1 informed through conference
call;
Rs.22,000/- through cash on 16.4.2018 on the
request of opposite party no.3;
Rs.1 lakh through R.T.G.S. to the account of
opposite party no.1 on 25.4.2018.
Mr.Jai Kumar who is the employee of opposite party no.1 had
made a conference call and informed that cheque payments
would take three days time for clearance and hence requested the complainant to pay in cash. On the said advise in the conference call, the complainants paid cash to opposite party no.3 and obtained a receipt from opposite party no.3 who has received the cash on behalf of the opposite party no.1. After receiving the 4 total amount of Rs.5,20,000/-, the opposite party no.1 had sent the flight tickets, accommodation particulars, tour programme, list of passengers and insurance details through opposite party no.3 and had never intimated that the complainants are due any amount. After receipt of the total amount, collected the xerox copies of passports of the complainants and thereafter processed the visas for the Europe tour.
Initially it was agreed that the tickets would be booked from Hyderabad to Doha, Doha to London and return from Paris to Doha, Doha to Hyderabad, but in the last minute, opposite party no.1 changed the air tickets from Hyderabad to Bangalore, Bangalore to Doha and return tickets from Paris to Doha, Doha to Bangalore, Bangalore to Hyderabad. Inspite of such sudden change, the complainants did not raise any objection and as they were looking forward to the Europe Tour with pleasure and happiness and had travelled from Hyderabad to Bangalore overlooking the hardship they have faced due to such last minute changes. The opposite party no.1 had promised to book 3-Star hotels, but booked sub standard hotels which lacked basic amenities like power supply etc. On 1.5.2018 after reaching Bangalore, the complainants along with other 46 co-passengers were teamed as Chariot Group no.WNCM02518 and boarded the international flight no.QR-0573 and reached Doha on 2.5.2018 in the early hours and after reaching London, the team was joined by Tour Manager Ms.Gwendolyn Rodrigues i.e. opposite party no.2 . The tour went on smoothly for 5 days under the guidance of Tour Manager i.e. opposite party no.2. But on 7.5.2018 after dinner at Grize(Germany) the Tour Manager informed the complainants that she had received a phone call from opposite party no.1 M.D.Mr.Shanbagh with an instruction to drop the complainants at the said place as the opposite party no.1 had not received the total amount from the complainants and the said fact was informed to all other co-passengers, due to which the complainants and the other passengers have protested the illegal directions given by opposite party no.1 and further expressed that they would not allow the coach to move without the complainants. After two hours of protest, the opposite party no.2 agreed to allow the complainants from dinner point to Hotel Inn in Frankfurt 5 (Germany) and the complainants spent the night of 7.5.2018 at Hotel Inn and in the morning of 8.5.2018 after checking out of the hotel, the opposite party no.2 again informed that she was instructed to drop the complainants at Frankfurt and further also had instructions to throw luggage of the complainants outside the coach. This unjustified and illegal act of opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 was strongly protested by co- passengers who collectively protested for such humiliation and torture being done to the complainants and also decided to give a police complaint to the local police. Having come to know the same, opposite party no.2 again called up opposite party no.1 who finally informed that the complainant have to deposit Rs.90,000/- INR through foreign currency i.e. Euro and Pounds and only then the complainants would be permitted to further tour . Having no other alternative, the complainant with great difficulty requested the co-passengers to contribute certain amount and after collecting the same, made the payment of Rs.92,000/- to the opposite party no.2 who had issued receipt to that effect. This act of opposite parties having collected the total tour amount, subjecting the complainants to such humiliation, inconvenience and hardship in a different country where they do not know the language of the said country and compelling them to pay the amount inspite of receiving the full amount is unfair and illegal on the part of opposite parties. Due to such behavior of the opposite parties, the complainants fell sick and did not have money even to purchase the medicines and rest of the tour could not be enjoyed by them.
The complainant no.1 is a practicing advocate with 35 years of practice and complainant no.2 is a doctorate in Bio Sciences who is having her own business and with an intention to visit Europe had planned a vacation by paying a sum of Rs.5,20,000/-, but the acts of the opposite party have not only shattered their dreams of foreign tour, but had also caused severe hardship, humiliation and mental torture to the complainats. After returning from the tour, the complainants have addressed a letter to the Indian Tourism Department and also sent an E-mail. The Tourism Department had issued Unique ID no.260518124317330810 and complainants also made a 6 complaint to the Joint Secretary, India Tourism and PGRAMS and Mr.D.Venktesan, Deputy Director General(IT), Ministry of Tourism, New Delhi and notice was sent to opposite parties 1 & 2 through mail dt.13.6.2018, but opposite party no.1 gave a false reply to the said mail asking the complainants to submit the receipts of the payments made with an only intention to cover up their own misdeeds. All these acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, as such the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs as stated supra.
03). The opposite party no.1 filed their written version while admitting the tour package booked by the complainants had taken a preliminary objection of jurisdiction and pleaded that as per the Tour Agreement and as per the Clause 8 of the said agreement the Courts at Bangalore alone has the jurisdiction to entertain any dispute that would arise between the complainants and opposite parties, as such this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and had reproduced the said Clause which is as under:
"LAW & JURISDICTION:
For all complaints, suits, claims or disputes of whatsoever nature relating to any products by Chariot World Tours Limited and third party products and tours the courts, tribunals in Bangalore, India alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction. All tours are subject to laws, rules of RBI/GOI."
The opposite party no.1 further pleaded that as per the said Agreement the complainants were supposed to make the payments in the name of Chariot World Tours Limited by way of cheque or DD and only in unavoidable circumstances to make such payments in cash and reiterated the said payment clause which is as under:
PAYMENT:
Payments should be made in the name of Chariot Worlds Tours Limited by cheque or DD preferably in unavoidable circumstances, cash payments are accepted. We also accept credit cards. For bookings, which are made within 10 working days of tour departure, the full amount will become immediately payable either by DD, CASH PR CREDIT CARD ONLY. On payment of Cash 7 Exceeding Rs.49,999/- PAN Card copy is mandatory."
Inspite of the complainants being well informed that he need to clear all the balance payments before commencement of the tour, the complainants have delayed the payments and insptie of several reminders from the Accounts Department of opposite party no.1, the complainants failed to make the balance payments and on 28.4.2018, the complainant promised to make the bank transfer but on 1.5.2018 he arrived at Bangalore Airport and informed that transfer has been done on 1.5.2018. 1.5 .2018 being a holiday , believing the complainants' representative at Bangalore Airport had handed over the travel documents to the complainants. But to their utter shock they have realized that the complainants failed to make such payments and after several telephonic discussions on 5.5.2018 , the complainant informed that the bank transfer that he has done on 1.5.2018 was not successful and that the balance payment would be done by his relative at Hyderabad and th at he was also informed by opposite party no.3 with regard to the balance payments to whom he has even given the contact details of his relative and directed opposite party no.3 to collect the same from his relative. On 7.5.2018 this opposite party had received a credit of Rs.70,000/- to their Hyderabad Bank account while the complainant was on tour and a copy of the receipt was sent to the Tour Manager based on which the Tour Manager (opposite party no.2) had issued a receipt for Rs.70,000/- dt.7.5.2018 wherein there is a clear mention that the balance amount payable by the complainants was Rs.89,800/-. But howe ver the complainants failed to pay such balance payments and on repeated requested from opposite party no.2, failed to make such payments and further the co-passengers paid the balance amount of Rs.89,800/- and the complainants promised to return the same by 17.5.2018, but failed to pay back the said amount to the co-passengers and the said co-passengers requested the Tour Manager (opposite party no.2) to pay back Rs.89,800/- as they need the same for shopping in Paris. As such, the Tour Manager had returned the said amount of Rs.89,800/- to the co-passengers and even till date the complainants have not paid the said balance amount. The complainants have complained to Tourism Department but the 8 Department sought for proof of payments made by the complainants, but the complainants failed to produce the said proof. As such, the Tourism Department did not entertain the complaint of the complainants. The opposite party further pleads that opposite party is like public trust and it is not a proprietary concern or a partnership firm but it is like a bank or a life insurance company offering services to large number of people who has their franchise in other states of India and the customers who avail their services are duty bound to make the payments in favour of opposite party no.1, but not in favour of any franchise. Life Insurance Companies have agents, the insurance amount is paid in favour of insurance company and not in favour of agents of the insurance company. Similarly the complainants were well informed by way of payments clause that the amounts were to be paid in favour of opposite party no.1. As such, the said contention of the complainants that the amount was paid to opposite party no.3 in cash cannot be believed and based on the said clause, the opposite party prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
04). Complainant no.1 filed evidence affidavit as PW.1. Mr.P.R.Balram Reddy, Advocate who travelled in CWTL along with the complainants filed evidence affidavit as PW.2. Mr.Thonduru Venugopal Krishna, who travelled in CWTL along with the complainants filed evidence affidavit as PW.3. Complainant no.2 filed evidence affidavit as PW.4. Exs.A1 to A34 are marked on behalf of the complainants. Mr.Atmanand Shanbhag, filed evidence affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.1 as RW.1. Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Written arguments filed on behalf of the complainants and opposite party no.1.
Heard the complainant counsel, perused the record.
05). The points for consideration are:
i. Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint? ii. Whether the opposite parties were unfair and deficient in their services?9
iii. Whether the complainant is entitiled for the reliefs sought in the complaint? If so to what extent?
06). Before we proceed with merits of the case, we would like to make a mention that opposite party no.1 had filed I.A.no.1499/2020 to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.
The said I.A. was kept pending by holding that the said issue of jurisdiction shall be decided along with the CC.
07). (a) Point no. (i) : The specific case of the complainants is that they have booked an Europe Tour through opposite party no.3 which is a franchise of opposite party no.1 and after receiving the total cost of Rs.5,20,000/- opposite party no.1 had processed the Visas of both the complainants and the tour started as per schedule with minor changes; that instead of Hyderabad to Doha, the complainants were forced to travel from Hyderabad to Bangalore and then from Bangalore to Doha, so also for the return journey. However, as the complainants did not want to create any nuisance due to sudden change they did not raise any objection. After 5 days of the tour, when the team of 48 tourists reached GRIZE ( Germany) opposite party no.2 - the Tour Manager was instructed by opposite party no.1 to drop the complainants there only and not to proceed further in the tour, as the complainants were due a sum of Rs.90,000/- and due to the protest by the other co-tourists they were proceeded to the next destination, but on the next day again opposite party no.2 resisted the continuation of tour by the complainants. As such, all the other co-tourists have protested the same and finally after the complainants have borrowed some amount from all the other tourists and made a payment of Rs.90,000/- in foreign currency i.e. Euros, opposite party no.2 issued a receipt to that effect and the trip went on smoothly. Inspite of receiving the total cost of the tour, the opposite party had demanded balance amount of Rs.90,000/- which is unfair on their part and this act of opposite party had caused severe humiliation inconvenience and hardship to the complainants. As such, the present complaint seeking refund of the excess amount collected along with compensation 10 and costs. Complainants got marked Exs.A1 to A34 in support of their case.
(b). On the other hand, the opposite party had taken preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction and had contended that in view of the specific clause in the Tour Agreement entered into by the complainants and opposite parties, the Courts of Bangalore alone had the jurisdiction to decide any issues that would arise in between the complainant and opposite parties. For better clarification, the said clause is reproduced hereunder:
"LAW & JURISDICTION:
For all complaints, suits, claims or disputes of whatsoever nature relating to any products by Chariot World Tours Limited and third party products and tours the courts, tribunals in Bangalore, India alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction. All tours are subject to laws, rules of RBI/GOI."
Ex.B1 substantiates the same and Ex.B1 is the Tour Confirmation Form which contains the terms and conditions of the tour. The complainants counsel had filed several citations reported in AIR 1994 SCW 3287, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2966, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1289 etc. wherein in all these cases, the Courts have dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction based on cause of action, whereas in the instant case, the opposite party had questioned the jurisdiction of this Commission, based on the specific Clause in Ex.B1- Tour Confirmation Form. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, the processing of the Europe tour for the complainants was done through opposite party no.3 on behalf of opposite party no.1 i.e. from Hyderabad. Hence the point that arise for consideration is whether the clause in Ex.B1 is binding upon the complainants. A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that it is a printed proforma which is exclusively drafted and prepared by opposite party no.1 wherein the complainant had no say with regard to the terms of the tour agreement. It is settled law that any pre-printed terms and conditions wherein the consumer does not have any opportunity to give his opinion while drafting the same, cannot be imposed upon the complainants/consumers. The act of the opposite parties in having such clause incorporated wherein the jurisdiction is restricted to only one region i.e. Bangalore, whereas the opposite party is having their franchise all over the India and is serving the 11 customers all over India cannot restrict the jurisdiction for disputes to one region. Having such one sided Clause amounts to unfair trade practice.
(c). That a part, the complainants were not made aware of the terms and conditions under Ex.B1 prior to booking of such tour. After the booking formalities were completed, intimating the terms and conditions will affect the decision making of the complainants. Without giving proper opportunity to the complainants to take a decision whether to avail such services which amounts to deficiency in service. Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that it is unfair on the part of opposite parties to incorporate such one sided clause which is beneficial to the opposite parties and causes hardship and inconvenience to the complainants/ consumers. The terms and conditions wherein the complainants had no opportunity to express their views cannot be imposed on the complainants. As such, the point is answered in favour of the complainants.
08). Point no.ii : Coming to the merits of the case, it is the specific case of the complainants that after receiving the total tour cost of Rs.5,20,000/-, the opposite party had proceeded with processing of the visas and also commenced the tour on the scheduled date and the said payments were received by opposite party no.3 on different occasions by way of cheque, RTGS and cash payments who had issued a consolidated receipt under Ex.A8 showing the total payments of Rs.5,20,000/- and also an affirmation that there are no dues pending from the complainants. The opposite party no.1 opposed these payments on the ground that as per Clause no.2 of the Tour Agreement, the complainants were supposed to make the payments directly to opposite party no.1 either by way of cheque, DD or fund transfer. For the sake of clarification the said payments clause is reproduced hereunder:
PAYMENT:
Payments should be made in the name of Chariot Worlds Tours Limited by cheque or DD preferably in unavoidable circumstances, cash payments are accepted. We also accept credit cards. For bookings, which are made within 10 working days of tour departure, the full amount will become immediately payable either by DD, CASH PR CREDIT CARD 12 ONLY. On payment of Cash Exceeding Rs.49,999/- PAN Card copy is mandatory."
Based on the above clause , the opposite party had contended that the complainants have not paid total amount and were due a sum of Rs.89,800/- and in support of the said contention had filed Ex.B3 and in support of the same, the opposite party also filed Ex.B2 wherein the balance is shown as Rs.4,37,800/-. Except Exs.B2 & B3, the opposite party has not filed any other document to show how he has received the remaining balance of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is for the opposite party to explain by what mode he has received the total amount of Rs.4,40,000/- . On the other hand, the complainant has filed Ex.A8 which clearly establishes that he has made the full payment of Rs.5,20,000/-. In such case, the burden is on the opposite party to prove by what mode he had received the total amounts except the balance Rs.89,800/- . Ex.A8 re veals that a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- was paid by the complainants in cash on 16.4.2018. In such case, we fail to understand how the opposite party no.1 has admitted the receipt of Rs.1,43,800/- by way of cash and had denied Rs.89,800/-. The opposite party had not rebutted Ex.A8 nor filed any proof to show the payments that were received by them from the complainant, where as the complainants have filed the receipts under Ex.A1,A2,A3 and A8 showing the payments made. As such, it can be undisputedly concluded that the complainant had made the payment of total sum of Rs.5,20,000/- and the fact remains that under Ex.A14 the opposite party no.1 had received Rs.90,000/- through opposite party no.2 from the complainants in the form of foreign currency which is dated 8.5.2018 i.e. in middle of the tour which conclusively proves that the opposite party no.1 had demanded the excess amount from the complainants thereby causing severe inconvenience and hardship to the complainants. Based on the above factual aspect, we are of the view that it was unfair, illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted on the part of opposite party no.1 to collect the excess amount from the complainants inspite of having received the total amount. We fail to understand why the opposite party had not demanded the balance amount before the commencement of the tour . As 13 such, an adverse inference can be drawn that the opposite party had illegally tried to extract the money from the complainants. Therefore, we feel that the opposite parties were certainly deficient in their services and are liable to refund the excess amount collected from the complainants . The point is answered in favour of the complainants.
09). Point no.iii : Coming to the entitlement of compensation by the complainants, Ex.A13 is the protest letter given by the 46 co-passengers who have signed the same and have protested the unfair action of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in dropping the complainants in mid way in a foreign country and not permitting them to proceed further in that trip. They have even decided to lodge a police complaint, but however as the complainants have paid the excess amount demanded by the opposite party no.2 on behalf of opposite party no.1, they have dropped the intention of filing a complaint which itself proves that the complainants were subjected to severe hardship and humiliation wherein all the 46 tourists joined together to protest the acts of the opposite parties. Ex.A13 coupled with Ex.A14 is sufficient to conclude that the complainants were subjected to severe humiliation and inconvenience which might have certainly caused mental agony to the complainants. That apart Ex.A15 to A21 which are the letters addressed by the complainants to the Tourism Department and the Asst.Director and Joint Secretary which itself reveals how much pain, sufferance and humiliation, the complainants might have undergone due to the acts of the opposite parties. The complainant being a practicing advocate and his wife, a doctorate in Bio Sciences who are well educated and having good image in the Society had to face the humiliation which has tarnished their image before the co-tourists, due to the acts of the opposite parties. Hence, we are of the view that the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the severe inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainants. As far as liability of opposite party no.3 is concerned since opposite party no.3 is the Franchise of opposite party no.1 and is the person who had received all the payments on behalf of opposite party no.1 from the complainants, opposite party no.3 is equally liable for the 14 deficiencies. Hence all the points are answered in favour of the complainants.
10). In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally :
i. to refund the excess amount of Rs.90,000/- that was collected by the opposite parties with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization; ii. to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the inconvenience, hardship and mental agony caused to the complainants ; and to iii. to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- .
iv. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(Typed to dictation on system, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Court on this 13 th day of June, 2023).
M EMBER ( J) MEMBER (NJ) _____________________________ Dated. 13.6.2023.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE W itnesses Examined For the complainants For the opposite parties Complainant no.1 filed Evidence Mr.Atmanand Shanbhag, Aff. as PW.1. filed evidence aff. on Mr.P.R.Balram Reddy, Adv.filed behalf of opp.party no.1 as PW.2. as RW.1.
Mr.Thonduru Venugopal Krishna filed evidence aff. as PW.3.
Complainant no.2 filed evidence aff. as PW.4.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants:
Ex.A1 : Photostat copy of Payment acknowledgement dt.1.1.2018 issued by opp. party no1 on behalf of complainant no.1. Ex.A2 : Photostat copy of Payment Acknowledgement dt.9.4.2018 issued by opp. party no1 on behalf of complainant no.1. Ex.A3 : Photostat copy of Payment Acknowledgement dt.25.4.2018 issued by opp. party no1 on behalf of Mr.D.Sandeep. Ex.A4 : Photostat copies of Insurance Policies issued by Reliance Gen.Insurance on behalf of the complainants. Ex.A5 : Copy of Acknowledgement cum tax invoice issued 15 by VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of complainants.
Ex.A6 : Copy of Acknowledgement cum tax invoice issued by VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of complainants.
Ex.A7 : Copies of Acknowledgements of fingerprinting and also receipts issued on behalf of the complainants. Ex.A8 : Receipt dt.26.4.2018 issued by Mr.D.Sandeep for receiving the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- from the Complainants.
Ex.A9 : List of tourists for Europe tour on 2.5.2018. Ex.A10: Europe Tour Programme details issued by opp.party no.1.
Ex.A11 : Airline PNR of Indigo dt.28.4.2018 issued by Sonthalias International Travel Tours.
Ex.A12 : Photostat copies flight tickets and itinerary details. Ex.A13 : Original Tourist Passengers Protest letter. Ex.A14 : Original receipt dt.8.5.2018 issued by opp.party no.2. Ex.A15 ; E-mail complaint given by complainant no.1 against opposite party no.1.
Ex.A16 : E-mail correspondence dt.31.5.2018. Ex.A17 : Whats App messages.
Ex.A18 : Grievance registration dt.1.6.2018 by mail. Ex.A19 : Mail sent by Dy.Director General to complainant no.1. Ex.A20 : Mail complaint given against opposite party no.1 by Complainant no.1.
Ex.A21 : Copy of lr. dt.2.6.2018 from complainant no.1 to Sri B.Suman ( Joint Secretary).
Ex.A22 : Copy of lr. dt.4.6.2018 from complainant no.1 to the Director, India Tourism/Bengaluru.
Exs.A23 to 30 : Mail correspondence with regard to complaint by complainants against opposite party no.1. Ex.A31 : Copy of Lr.dt.2.7.2018 from Asst.Director General(tt) to the Regional Driector(South).
Ex.A32 : Bank account details of Toom Prachita with Canara Bank.
Ex.A33 : Bank account details of Complainant no.1 with Canara Bank.
Ex.A34 : List of hotels for Europe Tour issued by opp.party no.1 along with Xerox copies of visa and passports of the complainants.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite party no.1:
Ex.B1 : Photostat copy of Tour Confirmation Form/ Passenger Data Sheet/Terms and conditions. Ex.B2 : Photostat copy of payment acknowledgement Dt.1.1.2018.
Ex.B3 : Photostat copy of payment acknowledgement Dt.7.5.2018.
Ex.B4 : Photostat copy of Tour Confirmation Form/ Passenger Data Sheet/Terms and conditions.
MEMBER ( J) M EMBER (NJ) _____________________________ Dated. 13.6.2023.16