Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Balkrishna Namdeo Katkade vs M/S Chaitanya Holidays Pvt Ltd on 28 February, 2018

A/16/835                                                                 1



       STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
                  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

                                Appeal No.A/16/835
     (Arisen out of order dtd.12/04/2016 Passed by District Consumer Disputes
             Redressal Forum,Thane in Complaint Case No.965/2015)


1. Balkrishna Namdeo Katkade,
2. Mangala Balkrishna Katkade
   Both R/at - C-8, 'C' Block (South),
   Gr. Floor, Usha Sadan CHS Ltd.,
   Near Colaba Post Office, Colaba,                    .... Appellants
   Mumbai - 400 005.                                  (Org. Complainants)
                 Versus
M/s. Chaitanya Holidays Pvt. Ltd.,
Through Managing Director,
24/A/2, Brindavan Complex,                            .....Respondent
Brindavan Society, Thane (W) - 400 601.              (Org. Opposite Party)

BEFORE: D.R. Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member
        A.K. Zade, Member

PRESENT: Shri. Balkrishna Katkale-Appellant present in person.
         None present for Respondent.

                                    ORDER

Per Hon'ble Mr.A.K. Zade - Member:

1) This appeal is filed against the order dtd.12/04/2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane, by which the complaint filed by Complainants-Appellants herein was partly allowed and it was declared that Opponent is responsible for deficiency in service. Opponent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for damages and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost to be paid till 30/06/2016, in failure of which Opponent was directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 01/07/2016 onwards on the said amount.

2) As per Complainants, facts of the case are as follows -

Complainants booked tour with Opponent for Kerla Package during the period from 14/03/2014 to 21/03/2014 and paid an amount of Rs.61,800/- by cheque for both Complainants and also signed booking form. Opponent had presented to Complainants itinerary of tour programme for each day alongwith names of the hotels for stay. However, Opponent did not make any arrangement to receive Complainants/Tourists at Cochin Airport and also had not paid the booking amount at the hotel. Also the sightseeings which were assured as per the itinerary were not shown to Complainants and the driver of the vehicle arranged by Opponent for the said tour of Complainants was not given the details of tour programme. The room given to Complainants was not air-conditioned room on 16/03/2014 because of which Complainants were required to make additional payment of Rs.500/-. As no vehicle was arranged on 17/03/2014 and 18/03/2014, Complainants could not visit any tourist sightseeing places as per programme and thus wasted two days. On 19/03/2014, the halt was assured at Kanyakumari. However, no arrangement of night halt at Kanyakumari was done because of which Complainants were brought back for stay to Kovalam and therefore, sightseeing at Kanyakumari was not possible except Vivekanand Memorial. On 20/03/2014, arrangement of stay in houseboat was done but as the generator of the houseboat was under repair, there was no electric supply. On 21/03/2014, also Complainants suffered lot of inconvenience due to non availability of vehicle.

3) Thus, as described above, there was complete mismanagement of tour programme by Opponent and although assured as per programme, facility of stay in A.C. hotel was not provided on 16/03/2014, vehicle was not made available on 17/03/2014 and 18/03/2014 and halts were not as per the programme because of which the Complainants could not visit some of the tourist sites assured as per said package tour. Complainants therefore filed A/16/835 3 consumer complaint before the Ld.District Forum. Opponent although appeared before the Ld.District Forum did not file written statement and therefore the Ld.District Forum directed to proceed without written statement of Opponent. On receiving affidavit of evidence of Complainants, written arguments and oral arguments, the Ld.District Forum passed the impugned order which is the subject matter of this appeal.

4) Appellant preferred this appeal mentioning that they have claimed compensation of Rs.4,71,800/- as Respondent failed to provide hotels, food, sightseeing as per written itinerary and as promised and hence, appellants suffered lot of inconvenience, mental torture and loss of sightseeing. The main ground of this appeal is that the Ld.District Forum erred in not properly considering the gravity of mental torture, inconvenience and loss of sightseeing suffered due to not providing of vehicle in time on each day and not providing stay in three star category hotels at places of stay as promised. As per Appellants, the Ld.District Forum was wrong in not awarding compensation item wise and should have awarded the compensation as claimed by Complainants. Instead Ld.District Forum awarded inadequate compensation and therefore the order of Ld.District Forum is wrong and illegal and needs to be set aside.

5) Perused record. Heard arguments on behalf of Complainant. Nobody appeared for Respondent although duly served.

6) The Ld.District Forum observed that Opponent caused inconvenience to Complainants during the said tour programme and did not arrange for hotels and sightseeing as per the programme. As no written statement was filed by Opponent after initial appearance, the evidence filed by Complainant was unchallenged. Therefore, Ld.District Forum from the evidence filed by Complainants viz copy of said package tour programme alongwith the documents in respect of stay in hotels and crosschecking them A/16/835 4 with hotel confirmation vouchers of the said Kerala trip, held that Opponent was responsible for deficiency in service. However, Ld.District Forum granted Rs.10,000/- only towards compensation for damages and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. The record shows that the entire tour package in respect of both Complainants jointly was costing Rs.61,800/- as per bill of Opponent for the said tour. It is also observed that Opponent has made arrangements of stay during the entire tour programme although on some days stay was arranged in hotels different than those assured by Opponent in tour package programme. Out of seven days programme from 14/03/2014 to 21/03/2014, on 16/03/2014, 17/03/2014, 18/03/2014 and 19/03/2014 halting arrangements were done in the hotels different than the hotels assured in the tour package programme. Also Complainants were required to pay Rs.500/- for a/c room on 16/03/2014 as an additional charge. Due to mismanagement of the tour, non availability of vehicle at times and delay in arranging the vehicles and also by changing place of halt from Kanyakumari to Kovalam, sightseeings in the entire tour were only partly covered.

7) In spite of the above shortfalls, in our opinion, compensation claimed by Complainants of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental torture, Rs.1,00,000/- for waiting and inconvenience, Rs.1,00,000/- for substandard hotels foods and Rs.60,000/- for loss of sightseeing are very excessive as compared to the total cost of the said tour package programme which is Rs.61.800/- only for both Complainants jointly alongwith taxes. Complainants have also claimed the entire cost of tour i.e. Rs.61,800/- in addition to above compensation amounts, although Complainants have undergone the said tour programme for all the seven days and enjoyed the foods, travelings, halts, night stays in hotels and houseboat stay as provided by Opponent alongwith sightseeings, which we do not find justified and reasonable. However, looking at the mismanagement by Opponent in respect of the tour by changing places of A/16/835 5 residence, causing delay in arranging vehicles which resulted in Complainants not being able to do some of the sightseeing as assured as per tour programme, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum rightly held the Opponent responsible for deficiency in service and for causing inconvenience to the Complainants.

8) During arguments, Appellants referred judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in M/s. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Arun Sinha & Ors., decided on 23/01/2012 in which the Hon'ble National Commission maintained the order of the State Commission which had upheld order of Ld.District Forum granting compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- to Complainants and dismissed the appeal filed by Opponent i.e. M/s.Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. In the said case the tour cost was Rs.1,79,417/- besides US $ 3,200/- and the tour was related to tour package to Malaysia and Singapore. However, the said tour package covered to & fro Air tickets besides arranging for transport and hotel accommodation through foreign travel/tourist agencies. The main issue raised by Opponent in the said case was that it was not liable for deficiency in service committed by the overseas travel/tour agency over whom the Opponent had no control and the Complainant should have filed complaint against them. This argument raised by Opponent/Appellant was discounted by District Consumer Forum, partly allowing complaint which order was upheld by the State Commission and not interfered by the Hon'ble National Commission in respective appeal/revision. However, in the said judgment, issue of compensation for inconvenience, shortcomings in providing hotel accommodation, transport service and in arranging sightseeing have not been decided. We therefore find that the ratio in the above cited judgment is not applicable in the instant case to decide the amount of compensation to be granted to the Complainants in respect of their claims.

9) From the above discussion, we hold that in the instant case, although Opponent had made arrangements for transport, sightseeing, stay and food during the period of the said tour programme, part of those arrangements and services were not as per the assured tour package and there were short falls in it which caused inconvenience & mental torture to the Complainants. We therefore, find it appropriate to award but limit the compensation to 50% of the total cost of the said tour programme i.e. 50% of Rs.61,800/-for both Appellants/Complainants jointly on account of the same. We therefore pass the following order -

                                   ORDER

 (i)    The Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii)    The order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane
        dtd.12/04/2016 is set aside.

(iii) The Consumer Complainant No.CC/965/2015 is partly allowed.

(iv) Opponent is directed to pay 50% of the tourist cost of Rs.61,800/-

(Rupees Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Only) i.e. Rs.30,900/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred Only) to both the Complainants jointly towards compensation for inconvenience, mental torture, loss of sightseeing, change in places of stay, shortfalls in transport, food and other arrangements and services.

(v) Cost of complaint is fixed at Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) and cost of this appeal is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to be paid by Opponent to both the Complainants jointly.

(vi) Opponent is directed to comply the above order within a period of sixty days from date of receipt of this order failing which the same will have to be paid alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. for the period beyond the expiry of above sixty days.

(vii) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 28th February, 2018.

[D.R. Shirasao] Presiding Judicial Member [A.K.Zade] Member aj