State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yatra Online Private Limited vs Ajit Singh Ubhi on 19 April, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2010 1. Yatra Online Private Limited (yatra.com), through its Manager/Incharge, yatra.com Holiday Lounge, SCO No. 16-17, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017. 2. Ms.Nidhi Mishra, Executive, Yatra Online Private Limited (yatra.com), yatra.com Holiday Lounge, SCO No. 16-17, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017. 3. Sh.Sonit Soni, Sale Incharge Retail, Yatra Online Private Limited (yatra.com), yatra.com Holiday Lounge, SCO No. 16-17, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017. .Appellants. Versus 1. Ajit Singh Ubhi, aged about 55 years, s/o Sh.Sarwan Singh r/o House No.911, Phase 3B2, Mohali, Punjab. 2. Jagroop Singh aged about 62 years, S/o Sh.Puran Singh r/o House No.114, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. .Respondents. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondents.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
1. This is an appeal filed by the OP against order dated 9.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 329 of 2009.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that both the complainants planned to visit Dubai for a pleasure trip and they availed the services of OP No.3 (Sh.Sonit Soni), Sale Incharge-Retail of OP No.1 (Yatra Online Private Limited) who assured the complainants of excellent arrangements at Dubai. The OP No.3 informed through e-mail to the complainants that OP No.1 through OP No.3 would charge a sum of Rs.41,500/- per person for the return trip to Dubai which would include the following facilities :-
Return airfare on Emirates Airlines(ex-New Delhi), Stay in Four Star Hotel at Dubai, airport transfers, all breakfasts, all taxes, visa fee, 1 Dhow Boat Cruise with Dinner, 1 Desert Safari with Barbeque Dinner, Half Day City Tour, 2 Dinners and expenses for obtaining the visas.
After the assurance given by OP No.3 to the complainants regarding the said tour, they agreed to get their pleasure trip to Dubai and thereafter OP No.2 booked the trip for Dubai. The OP No.3 collected the following amounts from the complainants :-
Sr. No. Date Person Amount 1 23.01.09 Both Complainants 3000/-
2. 24.01.09 Both Complainants 80,000/-3
Undated Complainant No.1 3500/-
Total amount paid by complainant No.1 45000/-
Total amount paid by complainant No.2 41500/-
Gross amount paid by complainants 86,500/-
On 7.2.2009 both the complainants boarded the Emirates Flight EK-511 from New Delhi, which was delayed by about two hours from the scheduled time and when the complainants reached Dubai they found that no visas had been obtained by OPs and therefore, the complainants had to approach various counters and had to spent two hours for obtaining the visas on 7.2.2009. The complainants submitted that they purchased two bottles of Red Label Johnnie Walker Scotch Whisky for UAE Dirhams 136 (Rs.1829.20 paise) from Dubai Duty Free Shop at Airport for their pleasure trip. OPs made lodging and boarding arrangements for the complainant at Dubai Hotel Al Jawahra Gardens Hotel (Four Star Hotel) and on the reception of the hotel, the complainants were informed that said hotel was a purely Islamic Hotel which follows the Muslim Sharia Ethics and no liquor or alcohol beverages were permitted to be carried inside the hotel and the consumption thereof was prohibited therein, to which the complainants protested. They immediately contacted the OP No.2 (Ms.Nidhi Mishra, Executive of Yatra Online Private Limited) on telephone and informed her about the hostility and restrictions in the hotel atmosphere and they requested her to shift them to another hotel where they could enjoy their pleasure trip but to no effect. The complainants had exhausted their entire credit balance of about Rs.500/- in this process and while processing the check in, the staff of hotel impounded the two bottles of the Scotch Whisky and warned them against consuming the alcohol and in case the complainants came to hotel after consumption of alcohol, they would not be permitted to enter the hotel. The complainants were informed that halal meat was the only choice in the food available in the hotel and the complainants being Sikh could not imbibe and consume halal meat. The complainants had gone to Dubai for rejuvenation and relaxation purposes only but OPs had harassed the complainants to choose such a hotel, which was meant for non-alcoholic and where halal meat was served. The above said act of Ops amount to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.
3. Reply was filed by Ops and the receipt of Rs.86,500/- as alleged by the complainants have been admitted but denied that visa fee was quoted as being Rs.3500/- per head. The correct heading of the money charged is as under:-
Purpose for charge Amount Airfare 32848/-
Hotel/breakfast/taxes/sightseeing/local tours 39716/-
Airline Service Tax 00384/-
Visa Processing fee 09023/-
Total:-
81,971/-
It was pleaded by the Ops that Rs.83,000/- were quoted from the complainants on the basis of above costing and by keeping profit margin. The OPs applied for visas of both the complainants and the visa request of the complainant No.1 was refused by Embassy of Dubai as the complainant No.1 had submitted his new passport and the complainant was asked to reapply by furnishing the old passport. Therefore the application of complainant No.1 was got resubmitted and then he was allowed to travel to the destination of his choice and liking for which an additional amount of Rs.9500/- were charged from OPs. It was pleaded that the allegation of the complainant regarding extraction of excessive money was specifically denied and it has been also denied that the complainants were not provided with any visa documents and that the complainant had to obtain visas from various counters at Dubai. It was further pleaded that Dubai issues electronic visas and not a traditional stamp /sticker on the passport page and this electronic visa number is linked to the PNR of the flight and in the absence of which the guest would not be allowed to board the flight at New Delhi itself.
It had further been pleaded that at the initial stage when Ops were approached by the complainants, they were shown the website of the Al Jawhrah Hotel by OP No.3 and after having obtained the consent from the complainants that OPs proceeded to get the booking of the hotel. The Al Jawhrah Hotel is a four star hotel approved by the Government of Dubai and is following the Sharia tradition of Islamic Law and only adheres to the Islamic way of life. It was submitted by the Ops that what or what not do people do on their trips, was not the concern of Ops and the business of Ops is only to provide ticketing, visa and hotel booking and sight seeing services. The allegations of the complainant regarding exhausting of Rs.500/- to contact on telephone were denied and also denied that the complainants were charged a sum of Rs.3698.75 per head for Desert Safari. All other allegations made by the complainants in the complaint were denied. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.
5. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Ops to refund a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant No.1 and Rs.41,500/- to complainant No.2, to pay a sum of Rs.400/- to the complainants being the amount spent on making phone calls to the Ops, to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants for causing mental and physical harassment, mental torture and for hurting their religious sentiments and Rs.5600/- as costs of litigation. This order be directed to be complied with by the Ops within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Ops shall be liable to pay the aforesaid total amount of Rs.2,37,000/- to the complainants along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of this order till its payment to the complainants besides costs of litigation of Rs.5600/-.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the Ops and submitted that the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that the appellant company had only obtained transit visas for the respondents is completely wrong. The definition of transit visas shows that the visas issued to the respondents could not have been only a transit visas as for the issuance of such a visa it was necessary for an onward flight ticket to be presented. In the instant case the respondents were not flying onwards from Dubai to any other destination. More importantly the itinerary of the trip of the respondents shows that the trip is for 5 days and therefore in any case a transit visa which is only for 4 days could not be allotted. Moreover, Dubai issues electronic visas and not a traditional stamp/sticker on the passport page. This electronic visa number is linked to the PNR of the flight, in the absence of which the guest would not be allowed to board the flight at New Delhi itself. This fact again goes to show that the appellants had applied for the visa of the respondents after paying the necessary charges and a perusal of annexure A-1 which are the invoices of the visa fees paid by the appellant company on behalf of respondents makes its clear beyond doubt that the appellants had applied for the visas of the respondents, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned District Forum in the impugned order is completely wrong. The conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that the appellant company is responsible f or the rejection of the initial visa of the respondent No.1 is completely wrong. The visa of the respondent No.1 has been rejected because while supplying the necessary documents, the respondent No.1 failed to provide his old passport and only supplied his new passport and therefore, the embassy of Dubai rejected the visa of the respondent No.1. The submission of the documents can only be a responsibility of the consumer and insufficient documents leading to the rejection of the visa by Dubai Embassy can in no way held to be the fault of the appellant company. Moreover the appellant company immediately reapplied for getting the visa of the respondent No.1 for which an additional urgent charges of Rs.9500/- was charged, but the appellant company only demanded Rs.3500/- from the respondent No.1. The conclusion arrived at in the impugned order is therefore completely wrong. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is totally wrongly on the point that the Al Jawhara Garden Hotel is a three star hotel and not a four star hotel. The appellants have already annexed a copy of official website of the Al Jawhara Hotel, which shows that the said hotel was a four start hotel as was promised to the respondents. The conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that the appellant company is responsible for the fact that the respondents could not consume alcohol in the hotel and further the appellants have hurt the religious sentiments of the respondents as the hotel served only halal meat is completely wrong. It is submitted by the appellants that the appellant company is in the business of arranging transport and hotel bookings and the appellants cannot be held responsible in any manner for the personal tastes, habits, likes and dislikes of each of its customers. The respondents had never told to the appellants prior to their departure that the respondents intended to consumer alcohol or that the respondents did not eat halal meat and as such it was impossible for the appellant company to presume that the respondents were going to Dubai and intended to consume alcohol in their trip. Furthermore, it is completely preposterous to conclude that the appellant company has hurt the religious sentiments of the respondents as the appellant company could never have known that the respondents did not eat halal meat. A perusal of the itinerary of the respondents shows that the meals in any case were not included in the package. It is submitted by the appellants that the respondents were not restricted to eat the food or to drink alcohol in the Al Jawhara Garden Hotel only and they could have gone anywhere outside to eat and drink as per their liking. The conclusion of the learned District Forum that the appellants have hurt the religious sentiments of the respondents for which a compensation of Rs.75,000/- each has been provided is completely wrong and illegal. The appellants made a proposal to the complainants that they can shift them to some other hotel of their choice but the cost difference (if any) will have to be borne by the complainants but the complainants did not agree to such initial proposal. The conclusion arrived at in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum that it is the onus of the appellant company to seek detail information from its customers regarding their personal preference is completely wrong as it has been already specified that it is not responsibility, commitment, projection of the appellant company to cater to every whimsical personal preference of every customers. This onus has been shifted on the appellant company in a completely illegal manner. The conclusion that the appellants are responsible for the respondents missing the desert safari is completely wrong. The respondents themselves state that they were waiting for call of the appellant regarding the change of their hotel and in the process missed the desert safari and the barbecue dinner. It is evident from this that the respondents missed the desert safari because of their own action and because of their own choice and the appellants can in no way be held responsible for a failure on the part of the respondents to not attend the desert safari. The amount of compensation awarded at Rs.75,000/- per head and the rate of interest @ 18% is extremely high and the appellants are being penalized at an exorbitant rate for no fault of theirs. It is submitted by the appellants that the amount of Rs.2,37,000/- that is being demanded from the appellant is extremely high and is liable to be reduced if the aforesaid contentions of the appellants are not accepted. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside and stay the operation of the impugned order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the learned District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh.
7. We have heard Sh.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellants and Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as well as of the impugned order, we have come to the conclusion that apparently this was not the main grouse of the respondent/complainant that whether the hotel is four star or three star. The basic complaint of the respondent/complainant was that the above said hotel was not fit to stay for the respondent/complainant because this hotel was purely Islamic Hotel, where the consumption of alcohol was prohibited. As per the Muslim Ethics, neither they permit anyone to carry liquor/alcohol inside the hotel nor they let anybody enter the hotel after the consumption of alcohol. The thing which bothered the respondent/complainant the most was the food available there. Being a purely Islamic Hotel only Halal meat was served there. The complainant being a sikh by religion cannot imbibe and consume the halal meat, which is against the edicts of Sikhism. Under these circumstances, the respondent/complainant requested the appellants/OPs to shift them to another hotel. As regards to this request, the contention of appellants/OPs that a offer was made to the respondent/complainant for the change of hotel provided the complainant/respondent are ready to bear the cost difference (if any) to which the respondents/complainants did not agree. The contention of appellant/OPs regarding the offer, for the change of hotel is not digestable as there is nothing on file from where a conclusion can be drawn that an offer was made and which was denied by the respondent/complainant.
9. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that definitely there is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of appellants/OPs. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants/OPs are liable to pay the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum. The detailed order passed by the learned District Forum is well reasoned, fair and proper. Therefore, we uphold the order passed by the learned District Forum except that the above hotel is a three star hotel. We do not find any force in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
10. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
19th April, 2010. Sd/-
[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[MAJ.
GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER Sd/-
[MRS. NEENA SANDHU] Rb/- MEMBER APPEAL NO.
25 OF 2010 Present: Sh.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondents.
-.-
Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
19.4.2010 (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) Rb/-
APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2009 Present: Sh.Pankaj, Advocate for appellant.
None for the respondent.
-.-
Arguments heard. The case is reserved for orders.
5.2.2010 (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)