State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
D. Srinivas Rao vs 1.Sri. K. Appa Rao on 15 February, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.239 OF 2018
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.334 OF 2016, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
The General Manager,
Telangana State Tourism Development
Corporation Limited,
Tourism House, 3-5-891,
Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad - 29.
....Appellant/Opp.Party No.1
And
1.Sri K.Appa Rao, S/o.Late Ranganayakulu, Aged about 78 yrs, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.3-100, Venkateshwara Colony, Road No.6, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500035.
...Respondent/Complainant
2. J.Srinath, Proprietor, Sri Sai Seva Tours & Travels, Authorized by Telangana State Tourism & A.P.Tourism, Head Office: Opp: Saibaba Temple, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
....Respondent/Opp.Party No.2 Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 : M/s. D.Srinivas Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Smt.K.Ganga Bhavani R1 Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.2 : Set exparte QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ******* Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble I/c President)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Opposite Party No.1, U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.05.2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy made in CC.No.334/2016. The Appellant is the Opposite Party 2 No.1, Respondent No.1 is the Complainant and the Respondent No.2 is the Opposite Party No.2 in CC.No.334/2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainant is a senior citizen opted to travel in Opposite Party No.1 Bus to visit Srisailam. He booked 4 tickets from Opposite Party No.2 who is the authorized travel agent of Opposite Party No.1. The tour was to commence on 08.09.2016 at 10:30 hrs and return journey was on 09.09.2016 at 9:30 hrs. The Opposite Party No.2 charged them an amount of Rs.6,840/- towards the journey and also issued a Reservation Confirmation Receipt on 03.09.2016.
4. On 07.09.2016 at 6:30 P.M., he received a message and a phone call that the tour has been cancelled and to collect the amount paid from Opposite Party No.2. Although he received refund of amount paid, he has filed the present complaint for the abrupt cancellation of the bus service and the great disappointment experienced by him and his family members.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 filed his written version admitting that the Complainant booked 4 tickets on the Hyderabad-
Srisailam package tour through Opposite Party No.2 and total fare amount was Rs.6,840/-. The tickets were booked in advance in the AC Mini Coach. It is their contention that this Opposite Party was not in a position to operate the tour package because of the low occupancy rate and accordingly the amount was refunded to the Complainant. The cancellation was not abrupt and it was informed to the Complainant one day in advance. They have also relied on Rule No.3 under "Rules for Tour" notified in the ticket. With the above submissions, they argue that there is no dereliction or deficiency in service and that the complaint is liable to dismissed.
6. The Opposite Party No.2, despite service of notice remained absent and not contested the case.
37. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked on his behalf. The Opposite Party No.1 filed evidence affidavit and Ex.B1 is marked on their behalf.
8. The District Forum after hearing and considering the material on record, partly allowed the complaint and the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- for causing physical and mental strain and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs for the litigation. Time for compliance is 30 days, failing which an interest @ 12% p.a. will be calculated from the date of booking the ticket (03.09.2016) till realization.
9. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 filed the appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The District Forum failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the ticket that the ticket was booked through Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 as per the Rules and no finding is given about the entitlement of compensation except the finding that Appellant failed make alternative arrangements even when cancellation of package tour governed by Rule 3 of the ticket issued subject to terms and conditions of booking.
The District Forum failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a public enterprise and the ticket is issued subject to the Rules mentioned and ought not to have allowed the complaint as the cancellation tour is departmental cancellation and due to low occupancy and not otherwise. The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the Complainant admitted that he travelled seven times to Srisailam on the earlier occasions with the tours operated by Appellant and never felt any discomfort during his journey. The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant conducted the tour for 26 persons and only 4 4 tickets were booked despite waiting for last minute, thereby the Appellant was constrained to cancel the tour as per the Rules.
10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
11. It is evident from the docket proceedings of this Commission dated 25.01.2024 that the counsel for Appellant is present and no representation for Respondents. Heard the arguments of the Appellant. Since the appeal belongs to the year 2018 and there has been no representation for the Respondents on several dates of adjournment, the arguments of the Respondents are treated as heard and the judgment is reserved.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and the Respondent/Complainant in person and perused the material on record.
13. The case on hand relates to a tour package which was abruptly cancelled by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and the Respondent/Complainant is seeking compensation for the abrupt cancellation. A perusal of the documentary evidence reveals that Ex.A1 is the cash receipt issued by Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2-the agent of Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.6,840/- and date of journey is 08.09.2016, departure at 10:00 A.M. by AC Mini Bus/Coach.
14. Ex.A2 and Ex.B1 is the reservation confirmation receipt and the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 have relied entirely on clause No.3 of the terms and conditions printed on this exhibit. The Rule 3 is reproduced below:
Rule 3: "The tour will be operated subject to operational conditions and availability of minimum number of tourists in the bus 5 for the date of journey. In case of departmental cancellation due to less number of tourists or break down in service, full amount will be refunded to the card account through which booking is made."
15. It is their main defense that the ticket is issued subject to terms and conditions and the Forum below failed to understand that the tour cannot be conducted only for 4 people when the total capacity of the AC Mini Coach is for 26 people.
16. The bone of contention is whether the incorporation of such a clause can be completely overlooked when the tour programme is cancelled a day before the journey?
17. The aforesaid clause, which is a part of the Respondent/Complainant's own evidence, is certainly very easily readable by any person with normal vision and the same is in printed format. As seen from the terms and conditions, the Respondent/Complainant must have been well aware that the tour package could be cancelled at the eleventh hour.
18. Clearly where the rights and obligations of the parties are contained in a documentary form, the averment to the effect that some assurance was given in spite of the existence of such document/s is not to be accepted at its face value, especially in view of the specific denial of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
This principle is also recognized U/s.91 and 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that where certain terms and conditions have been reduced to writing by the parties, no evidence on such terms and conditions ought to be taken.
19. The Respondent/Complainant has pleaded in his complaint that he and his wife have been regularly travelling in the buses operated by Telangana Tourism to visit Srisailam and never experienced any discomfort till date. However, on this occasion they opted to travel in Telangana Tourism bus and reserved the tickets well in advance and have been extremely disappointed and 6 suffered much physical and mental strain for their abrupt cancellation. Although we commensurate with his pain and sympathize with the disappointment, he and his family must have suffered, in view of the specific Rule, we find that the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has not been deficient or negligent.
20. The Commission below failed to emphasize this condition and needlessly compensated the Respondent/Complainant, in spite of accepting of the total refund of the fare amount of Rs.6,840/-. In view of the reasons noted in the preceding paragraphs, this Commission finds the Forum below erroneously passed the impugned order which has gone against the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy in CC.No.334/2016 dated 10.05.2018 is set aside. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit, if any, made to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest after the expiry of appeal time.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dt: 15.02.2024
UC*