Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a complaint filed by Ms. Leena Prabhoo against Raja Rani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, Mr. Abhijit Patil and Mr.Vishwajeet Patil, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service.

2. The facts can be summarized as under:

It is stated that in the year 2010, Shri Barve of Veer Savarkar Kendras and the Complainants father Dr.Ramesh Prabhoo enlisted the Opponents to organize the special trip to Marseilles, France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the historic jump of Shri Savarkar near the shores of Marseilles on 8th July, 2010. There were 250 people in the tour.

However, because of the advanced age of parents the Complainant contended that she had to rebook her trip by paying additional amount of `12,000/-.

The Complainant further contended that the Veer Savarkar Abhiyan was over on 8th July, 2010at Marseilles. The Opponent No.2 and the group of 247 people left for return journey on 9th July, 2010 at 09.00 a.m. The Complainant and her parents had to wait to the Marseilles to catch a train to Lyon and from Lyon they were to catch connecting train to Dijon. However, the train was delayed by one hour. Because of this it became apparent that the Complainant would not be able to catch her next connecting train from Dijon to Venice. Complainant further contended that it was necessary for her to reach Venice as she had to board the ship. There were no trains to reach to Venice. The Complainant was stranded in Lyon and hence the Complainant decided to take a flight from Lyon to Dusseldorf to Venice. As the airport booking counter opened at 04.30 a.m. and the Complainant had to wait and was forced to sleep on the airport along with her old parents. The Complainant contended that during this ordeal she had not received any assistance from Opponent No.2, that she had informed the same to Opponent No.2 and the tour coordinator Ms.Rakhi Malkani, who were in Mumbai. Had the tickets of the air travel been bought by the Opponent No.2, the Complainant claimed that she would have saved 1000 Euro. The Complainant contended that she requested Opponent No.2 to change the tour coordinator, however, instead of changing the tour coordinator Ms.Rakhi Malkani planned the journey of the Complainant from Marseilles onwards. The Complainant claimed that she had to wait from 09.00 a.m. to 07.00 p.m. at the Marseilles because of the wrong planning of the journey done by the tour coordinator Ms.Rakhi Malkani. Complainant contended that Opponent No.2 had handled her plans unprofessionally, callously, disrespectfully, maliciously and with full knowledge that his lack of proper action could cause grievous harm to the Complainant. The Complainant contended that the Opponent No.2 had not changed the tour coordinator despite of four emails sent by her. The Complainant further contended that since the deficiency in service committed on international shores the Opponents violated international travel and safety practice. The Complainant contended that the Opponents have committed deficiency in service in planning her journey and unfair trade practice and claimed refund of `1,38,381.80 plus compensation of `30,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and the costs of the complaint.

The Complainant cannot claim the amount on behalf of her parents as they are not parties.

4. The Opponents further stated that the Complainant was a part of Savarkar Abhiyan programme along with her parents. The complainant extended her trip from Marseilles to Venice to board Cruise for six days and was supposed to return back to Mumbai. The bookings for reaching Venice were done by Opponent No.1, however, the said extension of trip was not a part of the original trip. The Opponents further contended that the French Railways had confirmed in writing that the train from Marseilles to Lyon was delayed due to breakdown of the goods train and for this the Opponents are not responsible for the delay and alleged hardships, if any caused to the Complainant and her parents. The Opponents have received various appreciation letters from the members who had actually participated in the programme.

6. We heard the Complainant in person and Advocate Mr.Mahesh Ayare on behalf of the Opponents.

7. We have gone through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponents, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of the Complainant and the Advocates of the opponents. Admittedly, the tour was organized by Mr.Barve of Veer Savarkar Kendra and the father of the Complainant Dr.Ramesh Prabhoo and enlisted the Opponents as a travel agency to organize special trip to Marseilles, France to commemorate 100th anniversary of the historic jumps of Shri Savarkar on the shores of Marseilles on 8th July, 2010. Admittedly, 250 people participated in tour. Out of 250 people who participated in the tour only the Complainant has a grievance of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. The Complainant has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents for herself and her father and mother. However, the father and mother are not included as necessary parties in the complaint. The Complainant herself had admitted that after the visit to Marseilles, she had decided to divert travel itinerary from the group to Venice and then return to Mumbai. The Opponents have booked the tickets onward Marseilles to Venice and to Mumbai. The Complainant has alleged that the travel plan from Marseilles to Venice and back to Mumbai had been conducted unprofessionally by the travel coordinator Ms.Rekha Malkani. The Complainant alleged that Ms.Malkani divulged her travel plan to those outside her work environment and she brought this to the notice of the Opponent No.2. Complainant herself admitted in the complaint that Mr.Patil mentioned that his TA needs to be given prior notice about such requirements. The Complainant claimed that the Opponent No.2 had promised her to appoint another travelling agent replacing Ms.Malkani. Opponents have denied this contention in the written version as well as in their affidavit. The Complainant claimed that she is high profile person and wanted to keep her travel plan private and alleged the action of tour coordinator as a breach of tour and privilege. We are unable to understand how the travel plan of the Complainant breached privacy and privilege. The Complainant further contended that the tour coordinator against whom the Complainant had a grievance had done her train booking from Marseilles to Lyon to Dijon to Venice, on board cruise and back from Venice to Mumbai. We are also unable to understand how this has created rift between the Complainant and her parents. The Complainant claimed that she had initially cancelled her booking in the trip, however, subsequently looking to the aged father and mother had rebooked by paying an additional amount. When the Complainant rebooked her participation in the tour knowing that Ms.Malkani was a tour coordinator, it loses the force of the contentions of the Complainant against Ms.Malkani.