Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. That before the District Forum, the appellant admitted that there have been some lapses as well as changes in the scheduled programme and due to certain reasons, the schedule visits/sightseeing, shopping etc. were curtailed by them.

8. Denying the allegation that the appellant had not provided promised & assured services, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions:-

(a)             That it is not true that appellant had informed the respondents that the flight of Air India AI 111 had been cancelled.

The brochure clarifies this as the meal plan of the day shows only (B, D). It is further necessary to point out that at Tower Bridge, the tour leader once again advised the group that those who were interested could buy a lunch and gave the group time for the same. It is denied that the tour leader informed the respondents that he was visiting the places to be covered by the itinerary for the first time.

(e)             That the driver of the long distance coaches have to pass stringent tests before they are given licenses to drive public transport in Europe. They have to know how to read maps and locate the destinations. It will not be out of place to mention that the coach provided to the group of the respondents had a GPS (Global Positioning System) and one cannot make a mistake about locations and destinations with such system available. In light of this it is denied that the driver was unable to locate restaurant locations. The group was taken to Brussels and the coach was parked near the Grand Place. The group was taken for sightseeing. However, as the sightseeing was required to be done in a hurried manner, the appellant had voluntarily offered compensation to the respondents vide their letter dated 20th June, 2005. The appellant states that the said note has no meaning as admittedly Mr. David Morris took over the reins from Mr. Zarir Vazifdar on 12th May, 2005 and all the sightseeing allegedly missed was on days prior to his joining the tour.

(g)             It is denied that there was any blunder committed over next three days of the tour as alleged or otherwise, which resulted in missing of sightseeing. Due to slow moving traffic, the group arrived late in Paris. The delay was further aggravated due to unexpected heavy traffic in the city. As such the group reached the hotel after lunch at about 6.00 p.m. The tour leader even then tried for the River Seine cruise for the group members who had availed the Lido Optiona however, the traffic was bad even on that day on that route and the cruise was missed. During the travel within the city, the guide Ms. Sylvette did explain the relevance, importance and significance of various buildings and monuments, which are covered in the City Tour. On the next day, after completing the Disney tour the tour leader returned to the hotel and picked up those who had not opted for Disney and visited the Eiffel Tower. The clients were offered that the group would be taken to the third level instead of the first level to which they were entitled to in full and final settlement of whatever services were not exactly to their satisfaction. The respondents, however, refused this offer and were taken to the 1st level as per itinerary. The appellant thereafter offered the refund to the respondents on this count, which was rejected by them. It is further pointed out that the guided sightseeing tour in Paris had been arranged on an alternate day which for reasons beyond the control of appellant could not be done. As a goodwill gesture and in full and final settlement, on the next day the group including the respondents was offered sightseeing tour of Bern, besides the regular programme for the 8th day i.e. Zurich and Schaffhausen.

(k)              The sightseeing included in the main tour which was not done to the liking of the appellant was at Brussels and city tour of Paris and the one included in the optional tour was the River Scine Cruise.

This was due to traffic problems and the appellant had offered Eiffel Tower third level visit and the sightseeing of Bern in lieu thereof.

9. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the terms of the agreement between the parties to show that the allegations of breach of terms is culpably false and not tenable. Relevant extracts of the terms of agreement are as under:-