AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 20.11.2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 41 of 2013, whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 21,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and litigation cost, respectively.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘travel company’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 20.11.2017 and the memorandum of appeal.
The delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide Order dated 14.01.2019.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked a travel package with the travel company to visit Jakarta, Bali and Singapore, for himself and his grand children for the period from 17.06.2012 to 26.06.2012 and thereafter for himself to stay at Singapore upto 02.07.2012. The said package included obtaining necessary visas, air tickets and reservation of accommodation in hotels, pick and drop facilities and one veg. and two non veg. meals, site seeing etc. and his travel insurance policy. The complainant paid total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards the said tour package. The complainant also clarified to the International Tours Travel Expert that in case the arrangement of his travel insurance is not possible for the travel company then the complainant may be informed so that he may get the travel insurance policy himself. It is alleged that the travel company had not provided the travel itinerary, hotel booking chart, check out time for hotels, tickets for flights, travel insurance policy etc. to the complainant well within time intentionally and it is only on the evening of 16th June 2012 the travel company provided the details regarding reservation, accommodation and other facilities and on 17.06.2012 in the early morning the complainant and his grand children had to leave for Delhi for onwards tour. Travel insurance policy of the complainant was not provided. It is further alleged that the breakup of the above said payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- had not been provided by the travel company to the complainant. It is further alleged that as the details regarding the tour package was not provided within time, the entire trip was spoilt and the complainant suffered from stroke, mental tension, high blood pressure and the health of the complainant deteriorated during his vacation and a huge amount had been spent on the treatment of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant and his grand children is that instead of booking the tickets in direct flights, the travel company changed the route and booked the tickets in double hopping flight of Air Asia for Singapore to Jakarta requiring change of aircraft first at Singapore for Bali and then at Bali for Jakarta with whole day in transit. As the flight from Singapore to Jakarta was indefinitely delayed, the complainant and his grand children were asked to wait at Singapore Airport for at least 5/6 hours. The complainant and his grand children were not supposed to wait at Singapore Airport for indefinite time, the complainant purchased three new tickets @250 Singapore Dollars for each ticket totaling to 750 Singapore Dollars, which is equivalent to indian Rs. 33,000/-. Further, grievance is that the hotel as per itinerary at Jakarta was Le Meridian (Deluxe Sea Wing Room) but without any reason and without giving any time to the complainant, all of sudden hotel was changed by the travel company to Intercontinental Jakarta Misplaza and the staff of that hotel took the impression of the credit card of the complainant and against that impression, the staff of that hotel collected rupees 4,419,934 which is equivalent to Indian Rs. 27,469.07 and Indonesian Rupee 1,000,000/- which is equivalent to Indian Rs. 5,730/- without taking consent from the complainant. However, later Indian Rs. 27,026.75 has been credited on 07.07.2012 in the credit card account. It is further alleged that at Jakarta, last day’s tour of Island of the site seeing has been cancelled by the operators. The same incident had also happened at Bali where the Deluxe Suit in Hard Rock Hotel was booked with Dinner for all nights but all of a sudden the travel company changed the hotel and an inferior hotel was provided especially when the rooms in Hard rock Hotel was available and the complainant spent Indian Rs. 44,000/- @ Rs. 55.00 per US Dollar for Dinner for three persons for three nights with to & fro taxi charges. The further grievance is that at Singapore instead of booking of accommodation for three nights at Marina Bay Sands Hotel (Deluxe City View Room), the travel company booked the accommodation only for two nights while the rooms were available for third night and at Singapore also, the third day tour of Zoo was cancelled by the travel company. It is further alleged that at Singapore for another six nights the complainant was supposed to check in Hotel Peninsula Exceisior but the staff of that hotel informed the complainant that there was no booking for the complainant and on pursuation, a small room was booked and for that the hotel charged Indian Rs. 24,200/-. Seeing all this the complainant had very high blood pressure and the complainant immediately rushed for medical help and finally his friend made the arrangement for stay for 06 nights in Singapore Recreation Club and spent an amount of Rs. 1,78,200/- for six nights. On receipt of grievance from the complainant, the travel company sent an email informing that Rs. 1,62,681/- would be refunded to the complainant within seven days by crediting the same in the Credit Card Account. Therefore, after deducing this amount from the statement of the Credit Card, remaining outstanding amount was remitted by the complainant and it was informed to the Citibank that in case the above said amount would not have been received from the travel company within seven days, the Citibank would inform the complainant and on receiving the information from the bank that no amount had been credited, the complainant sent an email to the travel company to provide breakdown of the amount of Rs. 1,62,681/- to be refunded by the travel company because the claim made by the complainant was for refund of Rs. 4,50,000/-. It is further alleged that till the date of filing of the complaint, an amount of Rs. 1,62,681/-, which was promised to be refunded was not refunded.
Being aggrieved, the complainant company filed a complaint before the State Commission praying for (i) refund of Rs. 4,50,000/- charged by the travel company alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum; (ii) directing the travel company to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards compensation for monetary loss as also for physical and mental agony; (iii) directing the travel agent to pay Rs. 11,000/- towards fee and expenses of notice and (iv) directing to make payment of Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation cost.
The complaint was contested by filing written statement by the travel company stating that the complaint is not maintainable under the eye of law and the State Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter as the Courts of NCR Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The travel company stated that the delay of 5 to 6 hours at Singapore Airport pertains to the operational issue of Airline Company and the travel company has no control in such unwarranted delay and there was only two hours break in journey which was not a big issue and the travel company acted as an booking agent, therefore, the liability cannot be vested upon it.
The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 22.02.2018 allowed the complaint and directed the travel company to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service along with Rs. 21,000/- as litigation costs.
Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the travel company filed the instant appeal before this Commission.
Learned counsel for the travel company has argued that the State Commission Rajasthan had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the travel company had neither carried its business within the vicinity of Jaipur nor had the cause of action arisen at Jaipur. He further argued that the travel company is only a facilitator and acts as an agent and not a service provider, and, hence, it is not responsible for flight operations. He further submits that the tour package was shared 10 days in advance and the complainant knew the full fact that the flights in which the tickets were booked were not direct flights and the complainant had changed his booking after leaving on the tour and the travel company accommodated him. He further submits that out of the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, Rs. 1,62,681/- was refunded to the complainant and the complainant had suo-motu decided to extend his trip from 26th June 2012 till July 02, 2012. It is further submitted that for the payment charged directly by the hotel, the travel company is not responsible and the amount taken from the facsimile of the credit card of the complainant had also been refunded to the complainant. He furthermore submitted that due to delayed flight operations at Singapore, the complainant booked his own flight from Singapore to Jakarta, which was not the part of the package. Furthermore, he further submits that as per itinerary, the names of the hotels provided were proposed hotels and were subject to availability and the rooms were not available, therefore, the accommodation were provided in other hotels.
Mr. Ramlal, Manager on behalf of the complainant has argued that the complainant had booked his tour package from Jaipur and the travel company has its office at Jaipur, therefore the cause of action had arisen at Jaipur and the State Commission Rajasthan had territorial jurisdiction. He further submits that full details of air tickets and travel itineraries, stay arrangements, vouchers etc. were provided to the complainant in Jaipur by the travel company on 16th June 2012 a day just before the commencement of the tour from Delhi despite several reminders by the complainant, so the complainant was unable to make changes in the programme and was forced to start the tour on the terms of the travel company. He further submits that due to mismanagement and irresponsible attitude on the part of the travel company, the complainant had spent extra money on hotels. He further argued that the travel company is an international renowed tour organizer, therefore, its duty is to make fool proof arrangement so that no inconvenience would be caused to the complainant but delay and confusion in getting the rooms in hotels, keeping facsimile of his credit card, hopping flights in place of direct flights etc. have caused unnecessary physical and mental agony and hence, the act of the travel company comes within the definition of ‘deficiency’ under sub clause (g) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it failed to provide and perform the promised services. He further argued that the State Commission has passed a well reasoned Order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The main issue in this appeal is whether there was deficiency on the part of the travel company in providing a package to the complainant.
From a perusal of the documents, it is clear that the travel company has its office in Jaipur and the complainant is a resident of Jaipur, so, obviously the complainant booked the tour package from Jaipur, therefore the cause of action had arisen at Jaipur, hence, the State Commission Rajasthan has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In so far as direct flight is concerned, it is clear from a perusal of the tickets that there was only gap of 2 hours between the two flights and any delay beyond that period is not the fault of the travel company and also beyond the control of it.
In so far as the point of delay in informing the complainant regarding itinerary and the booking of hotels at Jakarta, Bali and Singapore are concerned, the email sent by the complainant on 15.06.2012 and the reply to that vide email dated 16.06.2012 are as under:
“Ali,
Yesterday I sent two mails, today is 15th June travel is to start from 17th in between only one day is left, I await all the details Hotel voucher, Insurance, Domestic flight tickets and other confirmations as per these two mails after sending please talk to me about the net amount which I want to sent today Only on receipt of the above.”
In response to the email, the executive of the travel company responded as under;
“Dear Devraj,
I will send you hotel vouchers, transfers Vouchers as well as Sightseeing Vouchers to your email
And sir Please let me know, which domestic ticket ?
I have not issue tickets for Jaipur – Delhi.
Any more concerns please let me know on 918469278334.
Regards,
Proposed Hotels:-
Le Meridian
(Deluxe Sea Wing Room)
(Jakarta)
Hard Rock Hotel
(Deluxe Suite)
(Bali)
Marina Bay Sands Singapore
(Deluxe City View Room)
Singapore
Premium Inclusions:-
Singapore
3N Accommodation in Singapore
Daily Buffet breakfast
City tour of Singapore
Sentosa Island in Singapore
Univeral Studio in Singapore
Night Safari in Singapore
Return Airport transfer
In Flight Veg + Non Veg Meal.”
From the perusal of the above, it is apparent that all the details of the flights and the proposed hotels and vouchers had not been provided well in advance. The mail sent by the executive staff of the travel company also reflects that the travel company had not provided all the details of hotel voucher, transfer Vouchers and the Sightseeing Voucher well in time prior to the departure which was on 17-06-2012.
As regards the booking for three nights at Singapore is concerned, Premium inclusions at Singapore shows that there was three nights accommodation and the proposed hotel was Marina Bay Sands Singapure but the booking was made only for two nights i.e. from 24.06.2012 (check in) to 26.06.2012 (check out). It is to be noted that had the change of hotels been made subject to non-availability, it was the duty and responsibility of the travel company to inform the complainant well in advance but the travel company had not informed the complainant. Further, by providing the details of the tour in the last day, the travel company did not give the complainant the time to seek out or do any adjustment to the same in consultation with the travel company. Considering the above, we are of the view that the travel company is deficient in providing service to the complainant causing him inconvenience and hardships.
In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that complainant is aged above 75 years and was travelling along with his two grand children, the compensation granted by the State Commission is just and proper. And the State Commission has passed a just and well-reasoned Order, which does not call for any interference by this Commission.
The appeal of the travel company being devoid of merit is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.