State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sotc Travel Ltd., vs 1.Wing Commander V.S. Reddy Iaf on 1 April, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESs
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.479 OF 2018
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.572/2014, DISTRICT CONSUMER
COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
SOTC Travel Limited (Formerly SOTC
Travel Pvt.Ltd.) having its registered
office at 7th Floor, Tower A, Urmi Estate,
95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel
(W), Mumbai - 400 013.
.Appellants/Opposite Parties
And
1. Wing Commander (retd) V.S.
Reddy IAF, aged 75 years,
Occ: Armed Forced Veteran,
2. Smt.Maheelatha, W/o.V.S.
Reddy, aged 64 ycars,
Occ: Housewife
3. Sri V.Sravan Kumar,
S/o.V.S. Reddy, aged 43 years,
Occ: NRI,
All three residing at 157, Sector-A,
AWHO Gautham Enclave,
Secunderabad - 09.
Respondents/Complainants
Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties: M/s. A. Rajasekhar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants: Wing Commander
Retd] V.S. Reddy [PIP|
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT,
&
HON'BLE sMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY ÓF APRIL TWO THOoUSAND TWENTY TWo ******* Order:
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15.of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 16.04.2018 of. the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad' made in CC.No.572/2014. The Appellant is the Opposite Party nd the Respondents Complainants in CC.No.572/2014.
For the sake of convenience, thic prlics arc described as
2.
arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are:
The present complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in Scrvice against Opposite Party who organized tour programs with attractive packages. The Complainants opted lor a' tour to USA and add-on tour to Canada for 17. days. .They paid a sum ol Rs.2,06,000/- cach and it is their submission that thç Opposite Party keptl postponing the tour without valid reasons. After many changes and delays, the Complainants inaly departed on their program on 29.09.2012 and prior to departure, the Oppositc Party collected the further amount of Rs,80,000/- from cach of the Complainants in addjtion to thc agrccd sum.
A. After completing the 12 day tour of USA, they claimed that the tour Manager of the Opposite Party abandoned them in the city of New York on 10.10.2012 and the Complainants had a very difficult time while procceding to Canada. They had to fend for themselves scarching for accommodation, food and transport. The present complaint is filed for the acts of omission on the part of the Opposite Party and for thcir utter disregard on their contractual obligations and for the fact that the Complainants were made to run from pillar to post during tour program. Hence, the complaint.
. The Opposite Party filed a detailed written version denying the allegations in the complaint stating that they are a mere tour operators and cannot be. hcld responsible for the authenticity of data provided by the Travellers/Complainants. The application for the USA Visa was made in the month of March,2012 and sincc first Complainant is a retired armed forces officer, there was a requirement for additional verilication by the Embassy. This Oppositc. Party has. no role to play in the process of Embassy officials granting Visas. By the time the Complainant received the 3 Visa it was the travel season and the Opposite Party had to make the necessary changes as a special case. It was the Complainant's inability to get their Visa on time that resulted in the cancellation and consequential changes.
6. The Complainants were not abandoned in New.York as alleged. They were unable to join the tour' organized by the Opposite Party as they could not secure the Visa on time. All bookings and confirmations were made by the Opposite Party on their behalf. The Complainants did not avail the services. for the tour to Canada and there was no booking on an escorted tour. The charged for the allegation that an amount of Rs.80,000/- was Canadian tour plan is false. This Opposite Party is not responsible for the personal expenditure of the Complainants after the to organized tour is completed. There is no.documentary proof show that the Complainants are entitled for the refund as claimed for.
7. Before the District Forum, thc Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A56 marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed. Ex.B1 to B5.are marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
8. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.80,000/- collected over and above agreed charges and reimburse an amount of Rs.78,000/- to each of the Complainant spent by Complainants for Canadian tour and Rs.68,000/- spent by. Complainants for their stay in New York city for one week and amount of Rs.80,000- collected as advance for future compensatory tour to the Complainants; the Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to each of the Complainant as compensation for the causing deficiency of service during the subject tour program; the Opposite Party is' also. liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint. The Opposite Party shall pay the above said amounts within one month of service of this order as otherwise liable to pay interest thereon at 12% p.
from the date of complaint to the datc ol payment
9. Aggrieved by the above said order of the District Porum, the Appellant/Opposite Party filcd this appeal contending that the Forum below had failed to consider the following:
The learned Forum failcd to appreciate the terms and conditions of the contract.
The learned Forum failed. to consider that only Forum and Tribunals in Mumbai shall have the exclusivc jurisdiction as per the terms successfully mentioned.
The learned Forum ailed to consider that the Complainants had booked the tour after going through thc terms and booking conditions and cancellation policy and hence the learned Forum cannot go beyond the terms agrecd upon. The learned Forum crred in holding that the claim for refund is justified and arrived at the conclusion without considering the documentary evidencc.
10. The Complainants approached the Opposite Parties based on their cxtensive advertisements and settled on a 17 day tour package to travel to USA and Canada. The cost per hcad was Rs.2,06,000/-, all inclusive. It is their grievance that there was an abnormal delay in obtaining the Visa because of lawed documentation on the part of the Opposite Party. It is also their grievance thal the Opposite Party collected an excess amount of Rs.2,11,202/- prior to departure and a sum of Rs.27,800/- was purportedly collected on account of enhanced fuel surcharge, service tax ctc. There was no time to seek clarilication because of the stress of departure.
11. The Complainants claim that after the completion of the 12 day tour of USA, the tour Manager abandoned them and they had to fend for themselves for a week in New York city and proceeded to Canada without any escort from the Opposite Party. Post tour they took up their grievance with the Opposite Party Management for the botched up tour and enhanced charges but they were very evasive. However, the Opposite Party Management offered a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide a cheque which' they accepted conditionally. Also the Opposite Party Management offered further discounts in future tour packages if the Complainants booked with them. Till today they have not redeemed their promises nor they clarified their position.
12. A perusal of the Exhibits filed reveal that the Complainants were booked on the 'American Experience with Canada' with the Opposite Party and the tour was to commence on 16.09.2012 as evidenced in Ex.A9. This letter was issued for the purpose of tourist Visa and is dated 27.08.2012. The estimated tour cost as per this Exhibit is Rs.1,12,299/ + USD $ 2139 per adult. Following this is ExA10- an email addressed to the Complainant stating that the letter for Visa purpose is attached but the tour slated for 16.09.2012 is not operating and till further advise the Complainants were directed not to book their flight tickets: The tour confirmation were issued to the Complainants only on 27.09.2012 vide Ex.A14. The Complainant has addressed a detailed email to the Opposite Party seeking redressal by recounting the tensions and travails undergone by them. To settle the dispute, the Opposite Party offered refund for Canada FIT tour by enclosing the cheque for Rs.40,000/- dated 12.12.2012 and the Complainants have accepted this amount without prejudice to their rights and further claims. Subsequent to this offer, the Complainants have addressed several emails seeking clarifications and refund of excess amount charged.
13. The Complainants have stated that their Canadian tour never happened and they were left to fend for themselves despite having paid in toto for the tour. As per Ex.A22 dated. 13.12.2012 -
it is submitted that the agents authorized by the Opposite Party have investigated the complaint and found that the driver waited at the airport for the client pick up but they did not arrive. Hence, the service was registered as "No Show" and they have filed.the driver's reply vide Ex.A22 dated 21.11.2012 and the hotel's reply dated 11.12.2012. We have perused the copy of passports filed by the e Complainants to verify their travel date. to Canada and have found that the Complainants travelled to Canada and their passport is duly stamped on 17.10.2012 at Montreal vide Ex.A34. To show that they did not travel to Canada and delayed their program by extending their stay in New York is without any material evidence. The Opposite Party has failed to provide the itinerary nor they have submitted any travel dates and neither have they provided the information with regard to hotcl accommodation organized by them. Even assuming that the Complainants failed to mect the driver designated to meet them at the airport they would have made their way to the assigned hotel provided for their stay. The impugned order failed to highlight the stamp on the passport at Montreal but rightly observed that the Opposite Party failcd to provide any information with regard to the scrvices promised by them. In view of the dctailed obscrvations, we agree with the findings of the Forum below and the Opposite Party certainly committed gross deficiency in scrvice in abandoning their clients in Canada.
14. The Opposite Parties have invariably admitted to their having been deficient by reimbursing the paltry sum to the Complainants by way of a cheque for Rs.40,000/- vide Ex.A19. This sum as refund is not acceptable to the Complainants and the Opposite Party being established tour operators are duty bound to file the documents for the agreement of tour, booking form, schedule of departure and transfers along with program of itinerary. They have failed miserably to prove their bonafide and the grounds urged by them in this appeal have been answered in detail and dismissed forthwith.
15. Although the finding of the Forum below is confirmed, we seek to modify the awarded amounts taking into consideration that the Opposite Party have already reimbursed the Complainants vidc Ex.A19. It is also necessary to point out that the Complainants did not deposit any hotel bills or statement of expenses incurred on the tour of Canada. Hencc, we find that granting a sum of Rs.80,000/- to each Complainant for the deficiency in scrvice is on the part of the Opposite Party would be just and reasonable.
16. In the result, the appeal is disposcd of and the Appcllant/Opposite Party is directed to refund:
a) a sum of Rs.80,000/ (Rupecs cighty thousand only) to cach Complainant;
b a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only towards costs.
Time for compliance-45 days from today and if the said amounts are not paid by then, Appellant/Opposite Party is liable to pay interest on the said amounts @7% p.a. from that day ill payment is made