National Consumer Disputes Redressal
R. Suyamb Ananthan & Ors. vs M/S. Cox And Kings on 26 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2013 (From the order dated 25.09.2013 in Complaint No. 92/2011 of Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) 1. R. Suyamb Ananthan, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 2. S. Chitra, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 3. S. Pradheep, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 4. S. Janani, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 5. P. Muruganantham, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 6. S. Shafiq Ali Ahamed, No. 901-C Bell Colony, Opp. District Court, Palayamkottai, Tirunalveli District, Tamil Nadu ... Appellant (s) Versus 1. M/s. Cox and Kings, 10, Karuna Corner, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031, Tamil Nadu 2. M/s. Cox and Kings, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Bombay 400 001, Maharashtra . Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2014 (From the order dated 25.09.2013 in Complaint No. 92/2011 of Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) 1. M/s. Cox and Kings Limited, Through its Authorized Representative 10, Karuna Corner, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031, Tamil Nadu 2. M/s. Cox and Kings Limited, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Bombay 400 001, Maharashtra Represented by its Deputy Manager (Legal) . Appellant (s) Versus 1. R. Suyamb Ananthan, Son of Ramasamy, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 2. S. Chitra, Wife of R. Suyamb Ananthan, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 3. S. Pradheep, Son of R. Suyamb Ananthan, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 4. S. Janani, Daughter of R. Suyamb Ananthan, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 5. P. Muruganantham, Son of Paul Durai, No. 162/5, Mangalam Colony, Anna Nagar, West Chennai 600 040, Tamil Nadu 6. S. Shafiq Ali Ahamed, Son of S. Ahemed Hassan, No. 901-C Bell Colony, Opp. District Court, Palayamkottai, Tirunalveli District, Tamil Nadu ... Respondent (s) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For R. Suyamb Aanthan Mr. B. Nikhil Swami, Advocate For M/s. Cox & Kings Mr.APS Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 26th MAY. 2014 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These two First Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short the State Commission) in consumer complaint No. 92 of 2011, filed by the complainant/appellant R. Suyamb Ananthan & Ors., vide which the said complaint was partly allowed.
Both the parties have filed appeals against this order, which are being disposed off by this order and a copy of the same should be placed on each file.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there are six complainants consisting of R. Suyamb Ananthan, his wife S. Chitra, his son S. Pradheep, his daughter S. Janani, his wifes brother, P. Muruganantham and their family friend S. Shafiq Ali Ahamed. The complainants party decided to go on a foreign tour covering Thailand and Singapore for a week in May, 2011, for which they made bookings with the opposite party-M/s. Cox & Kings at their office in Chennai. It has been stated that a total sum of Rs.5,61,000/- was paid for the said bookings. The complainants have alleged that at the time of booking the tour, the opposite party blocked the tickets only for five complainants instead of six, and in the process, they left out the wife of the main complainant-S. Chitra. On being pointed out that she had been left out, the complainants were assured that a separate ticket will be blocked for S. Chitra and there would not be any problem, as they shall be travelling in one group only. The complainants have alleged that the staff of the opposite party had an indifferent and casual approach at the time of booking, as they were more interested in watching a World Cup Cricket Match on the television installed in their office.
On being assured that all six complainants shall travel together, the complainants proceeded on the said tour to Thailand and Signapore. It has been stated in the complaint that the first part of their tour, which was for Bangkok went alright without any glitches, till they reached Singapore. At Singapore, however, they were told by the local representatives of the opposite party that they had intimation about the booking for a family, consisting of four adults and one child only and therefore, it was not possible to accommodate six persons in the car, which was waiting at the airport to take them to the hotel. When they insisted that all six person belonged to one group and shall travel together, the local representative went back to seek instructions from his employer and came back after two hours with another car and took the six complainants to the hotel. The hotel authorities also informed them that the booking in the hotel was for four adults and one child only. The daily buffet breakfast was also meant for five persons. Even for sight-seeing in Singapore, the tour bus refused to entertain six persons and insisted upon taking only five persons, unless separate charges were paid for the sixth person. The next morning, when the bus came at 8.30 a.m. to take them to the city tour; once more, the same problem arose as the bus wanted to pick up only five people. When they offered to pay extra amount for the sixth person, they were told that seat was not available for the sixth person. Moreover, the facilities and accommodation booked for them were not satisfactory; and hence they had to move to another hotel by paying 390 Singapore dollars per day.
3. In nutshell the complainants have alleged that because of negligence on the part of the opposite party, they had to undergo a lot of mental harassment at Singapore because the booking was for five persons only and in the process, the wife of the main complainant had been left out. On their return, the complainants took up the matter with the opposite party for adequate compensation. The opposite party informed them vide letter dated 04.08.2011 that they would offer them Rs.1,42,303/- towards refund for cancellation of return air tickets and unutilized services by the complainants. The complainants refused to accept that offer and informed the opposite party that if the offer of Rs.1,42,303/- is increased by atleast 200%, then they would consider settling the matter amicably. However, on refusal of the opposite party to accede to their demand, the consumer complaint, in question, was filed, demanding directions to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.50.00 lacs towards compensation for deficiency in service, negligence in duty and for the mental agony suffered by the complainants.
4. The Opposite party filed their version before the State Commission, denying the allegations levelled against them. They stated that they had sent correct request to the representative at Singapore for making arrangements for five adults and one child and, therefore, any allegation with regard to negligence on the part of the representative at Singapore is not attributable to the opposite parties and in any event, not proved by the complainants. They have also quoted from the terms and conditions governing the contract, saying that they were not liable for the lapse, as alleged by the complainants.
5. The State Commission after taking into account the evidence of the parties, passed the impugned order, partly allowing the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,42,303/- as already agreed by them and further a sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs for the unfair trade practice, negligence in duty, deficiency in service, mental agony and physical suffering. They were also asked to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants. It is against this order that the present appeal has been made.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined the record.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant-R. Suyamb Ananthan & Ors.
stated that the complainants were supposed to leave for the said tour on 05.5.2011, but the documents were given to them just on 04.05.2011 evening i.e. a few hours before the departure. On their way to the airport, they discovered that even the tickets were not available in the documents given to them and hence, they were put to a lot of avoidable inconvenience and harassment. Learned counsel stated that right from the beginning, the opposite parties have shown deficiency in service and negligence in duty because of which the complainants had to suffer great mental agony and suffering. He further stated that the first part of the tour for Bangkok went alright, but at Singapore, the booking was for five persons only and hence, they had to undergo lot of harassment everywhere in the matter of transport, sight-seeing and hotel accommodation. Before making the consumer complaint, in question, the complainants sent a legal notice to the opposite parties, seeking compensation of Rs.50.00 lacs. The opposite parties sent a reply vide their letter dated 04.07.2011 that they were conducting the necessary enquiry into the whole matter. The opposite party sent another letter on 04.8.2011 offering the following:-
1. Total Air India ticket refund for 06 Pax-(INR 41,325 Refund amount after cancellation per adult INR 7092x05 adults INR 35,460 Refund amount after cancellation per child INR 5865 x 01 child INR 5865
2. Singapore land package refund USD 2445 @ 41.30 = INR 100978/-
USD 375 x 4 = USD 1500 USD 325 x 1 = USD 325 Singapore refund for the sixth passenger USD 620
3.
Total refund amount for 06 PAX INR 1,42,303
8. The complainants replied vide their letter dated 07.09.2011 that they were willing to consider if fresh offer is made which is atleast 200% more than the offer made by the opposite party in their letter dated 04.8.2011.
Another letter was received from the opposite party dated 05.11.2011, saying that the hotel staff at Singapore was ready to provide an extra room, but the complainants demanded a suite room on the same vouchers, given by the opposite party.
When the hotel authorities turned down their request, they decided to change the hotel. The consumer complaint in question was then filed before the State Commission, which had been partly allowed. Learned counsel insisted that their appeal should be accepted and the compensation as asked for in the complaint, should be allowed to them.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party-M/s. Cox & Kings stated that the complainants had just put forward a concocted story against the opposite parties to cause them harassment. In fact, all the services were provided to them at Singapore, and there was no cause for any complaint. Learned counsel stated that in fact, the booking had been made for six persons, but the complainants demanded a suite room in the hotel which the hotel refused to provide. Even then, the opposite parties had offered to pay Rs.1,42,303/- considering them as valued customers. Learned counsel argued that the order of the State Commission was not in accordance with law because no reasons had been given for arriving at a compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs. The order of the State Commission should therefore be set aside.
10. We have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
11. There is a delay of 47 days in filing FA/12/2014 by M/s. Cox & Kings and Anr. An application for condonation of the said delay has been submitted, saying that the offices / files of the appellant are located at different places across India and therefore, the impugned order could not reach the concerned Legal Manager in time. The delay was therefore, due to administrative reasons only. In view of the position explained and looking at the fact that both parties have filed appeals against a common order, the delay in filing appeal in FA/12/2014 is condoned.
12. The core issue involved in this case revolves around the allegations levelled by the main complainant, R. Suyamb Ananthan that they were a party of six persons, but the opposite parties did mistake in making separate booking for his wife, S. Chitra, Complainant No.2. The party of six persons was thus divided into two groups, one consisting of four adults and one child and the second group consisting of one adult only.
This action of the opposite party resulted in avoidable harassment and mental torture to all the persons, as during arrangements for transportation, accommodation and sight-seeing at Singapore, the wife of the complainant No.1 was left without any arrangement. It has been admitted by the opposite parties in their reply before the State Commission and also in the Memo of Appeal filed before this Commission, that booking was separately done for the wife of the main complainant. They initially booked five tickets in the first PNR and then they booked complainant No.2 under the second PNR. In this way, it is admitted by the opposite parties that two PNRs were generated for the party of six persons, meaning thereby that they were divided into two groups. The complainants have stated that they brought this aspect to the notice of the opposite parties, saying that they may have to face problems because of two PNRs, but the opposite parties assured them that the whole group will have combined arrangements.
13. As per the version given by the appellants, they were scheduled to cover two countries during their tour-Thailand and Signapore. There was no problem experienced by them on the Thailand part of the tour, in so far as the arrangements for accommodation, sight-seeing etc., were concerned. However, when they reached Singapore, right from the Airport, they had to suffer problems everywhere, because the local representative told them that the booking was for five persons only. In particular, the complainant has raised the following issues:
(i) The local representative of Vacation Asia who received the complainants at Singapore Airport informed them that they shall cater to the needs of a family, consisting of four adults and one child only.
(ii) The local representative told them that he could take only five persons to the hotel.
When the complainants insisted that they were six persons, the local representative went back to seek instructions and brought another car after two hours and took all six persons to the hotel in the evening.
(iii) At the hotel also, they were told that the accommodation was meant for five persons only.
(iv) They were also told that the buffet breakfast shall be provided to five persons only.
(v) During sight-seeing, the vehicle that came to pick up the complainants, refused to carry all six persons. In one such trip, the sixth person was allowed entry after payment of 100 Singapore Dollars extra. In another trip, the sixth person was not allowed, even after making extra payment as there was no seat available in the vehicle for sixth person.
14. The complainants have therefore alleged that because of the negligence of the opposite parties in making two bookings and not providing proper information to the local representatives, they had to undergo lot of mental torture and harassment, for which they should be handsomely compensated.
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties stated at the time of arguments that opposite parties had not indulged in negligence of any kind, as they had given proper intimation to the local representatives at Singapore.
The story presented in the complaint was a concocted story. In fact, the complainants wanted better-class accommodation at the hotel in question, and on the refusal of the hotel staff to provide them a suite accommodation; they made out a story, alleging that all arrangements were bad. The learned counsel also stated that in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the booking of such tours, the opposite parties were not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants, if the local representatives at Singapore had defaulted in making proper arrangements.
16. It is made out from record that the opposite parties offered to make payment of Rs.1,42,303/- for amicable settlement on without prejudice basis. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.41,325/- was proposed to be given as refund for the Air India tickets for back journey to India.
Another sum of Rs.1,00,978/- was proposed to be given for Singapore Land Package refund.
The complainants however, refused to accept this amount and replied that if the offer was increased by atleast 200%, they would consider the same.
17. As stated, the core issue in the case is, whether the arrangements at Singapore were made for five persons or six persons? The opposite parties have themselves admitted that the booking was made through two PNRs, one for five persons and other for a single person.
It is the duty of the opposite parties to prove by credible evidence that the arrangements at Singapore for transportation, accommodation and sight-seeing were meant for a party of six, and not for five persons. A copy of the document Time Itinerary from Vacation Asia Singapore placed on the file reveals that the booking was for four adults and one child. The Universal Studio packages were also booked for four adults and one child. It is the duty of the opposite parties to explain by placing proper documents on record that the arrangements at Singapore for all components, like transportation, accommodation and sight-seeing were for six persons and not five persons. The opposite parties cannot escape responsibility, just by saying that they are not liable if the local representatives were not able, to make proper arrangements.
18. On the other hand, during arguments, learned counsel for the complainants were also asked to explain, if they were in possession of copies of documents / vouchers etc., which may show that the arrangements for transport from Airport, hotel accommodation and for sight-seeing were made for five persons or for six persons. The natural presumption is that when a touring party lands at the airport, they must be in possession of certain documents / vouchers, based upon which the local representative receives them for transportation to their hotel accommodation etc.. Similarly, for staying in Hotel and for sight-seeing also, the complainant must have been provided with certain documents, depicting the number of persons for which the arrangements were made. It is the duty of the complainants to place these documents on record.
19. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the State Commission indicates that in addition to the sum offered by the opposite parties i.e. Rs.1,42,303/-, the State Commission allowed a further sum of Rs.3.50 lacs to be paid to the complainants as compensation for unfair trade practice, negligence, deficiency in service, mental agony etc. The State Commission have not given any reasons for arriving at this figure of Rs. 3.50 lacs, while passing their order. The State Commission have also not taken into consideration the letter sent by the complainants to the opposite parties in which they stated that if the offer of Rs.1,42,303/- was increased by atleast 200%, they were prepared to consider the offer.
20. Based on the discussion above, it is felt that in order to arrive at the depth of the issue and to pinpoint the exact deficiency or negligence, if any, on the part of the opposite parties, it is absolutely necessary that both the parties are given a chance to prove their case by the necessary documentary evidence.
It is to be clearly established whether the arrangements at Singapore were for five persons or six persons and the exact details of such arrangements. With these observations, both these revision petitions are accepted and impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the case is remanded to the State Commission with the direction that they should call the parties and give them an opportunity to produce evidence again, and then pass a detailed speaking order, giving specific reasons for the conclusions made.
20. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.07.2014.
..Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER SB/4