AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 596 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (Urban) (in short "the District Forum"), and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party.
The facts in brief are that the Complainant along with some other friends booked with the Opposite Party a European Tour, scheduled to travel between 25.04.2015 to 13. 05.2015. It was stated that the accommodation would be on a twin sharing basis and an initial amount of Rs. 41,236/- was paid to the Opposite Party on 28.11.2014. The Balance of Rs. 2,26,695/- was paid after the visa was arranged by the Opposite Party. It is averred that the tour itinerary was received by the Complainant four days prior to the date of departure i.e. 20.04.2015. In this itinerary, it was stated that the accommodation was for three persons in one room. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party telephonically and he was assured that accommodation would be on twin sharing basis. It is pleaded that the accommodation was not given on twin sharing basis and throughout the tour he had to put up with a lot of physical inconvenience and mental torture as in a group tour, the Complainant had to be ready at a specific time and sharing a room with three persons he had to undergo a lot of agony and inconvenience. After returning, the Complainant addressed a letter dated 26.06.2015 to the Opposite Party claiming difference in the room tariff and compensation for the physical inconvenience which has occurred. Despite several requests there was no response, hence this Complaint seeking the difference in the room tariff i.e. Rs. 42,667/-, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
The Opposite Party filed their Written Version stating that the Complainant is one of the guests among self-formed 15 guests group; that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid as advance; the group tour was for 18 days scheduled to depart from Bangalore on 25.04.2015 and that after discussions it was agreed that all the 15 members including the Complainant would pay reduced cost of the tour i.e. Rs. 2,59,900/- plus GST of 3.09%, while the actual tour cost was Rs. 2,79,900/-. This self-formed group of 15 members comprised of 6 couples and 3 male guests; 6 double rooms to all the six couples were offered and one twin room and one single room for 3 male guests. It was averred that the guest who wanted to stay in a single room would have to pay additional charges of Rs. 62,000/- plus 3.09% GST over and above the tour cost. The second option was to provide one triple room for all the three males. Since the three male guests including the Complainant did not agree to pay supplementary charges of Rs. 62,000/-, they chose to share one triple room while on the tour. A pre-departure meeting was held at Hotel Chalukya, Alampur on 30.03.2015 and all the travel documents including the rooming list was given and the Complainant herein was very much aware that he would be sharing a triple room. After having completed the European tour and returning safely to India, this Opposite Party was surprised to receive a letter dated 26.06.2015 from the Complainant, seeking refund of that part of the tour costs as he had to share a triple room. The letter agreeing to the tour charges and duly signed by the other 14 guests of the self-formed group shows that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Party.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 42,664/- to the Complainant together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District forum and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party with cost of Rs. 2,500/-.
Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner vehemently contended that initially there were 16 members, which is a self-formed group and the tour was for 18 days in Europe, but one of the members had cancelled the tour vide letter dated 15.12.2014 and obtained the refund of the advance amount paid and therefore the group was reduced to 15 members. Since there were 6 couples and 3 male members, 6 couples were given double room and the three male members were given 2 options, which is detailed as hereunder:
"Option No.1: All 6 couples will be provided 06 double rooms. One twin room and one single room for three male guests and the guest who wants to stay in a single room will have to pay single supplementary charges of Rs.62,000/- plus GST @ 3.09% over and above of the agreed tour costs.
Option No.2: All 6 couples will be provided 06 double rooms and one triple room for 3 male guests in case none of the 3 single male members agree to pay single supplement costs of INR.62,000."
He strenuously argued that despite the information since none of the 3 male members were ready to pay the additional single room charges with GST, they agreed to share one triple room. Even in the pre-departure meeting the Complainant was explained that he would be sharing a triple room. He submitted that four documents were produced by way of evidence on 23.10.2015, before the District Forum in support of their evidence.
It is observed from the record that the Complainant by way of evidence filed an Affidavit before the District Forum stating that he was never informed in the pre-departure meeting and submitted that all the tour details including the terms and conditions were finalised on behalf of all the members by four tour coordinators. It was stated in the Affidavit that the question of meeting of the members before finalising the terms and conditions was absolutely false. It was vehemently denied that the Opposite Party had met with all 15 tour members before the departure. There was no discussion on options 1 and 2 and therefore the question of demanding additional sum of Rs. 62,000/- plus GST 0.39% did not arise at all.
When it is a group tour of 15 persons and 12 people were given the rooms on a twin sharing basis and the initial package was on a twin sharing basis, the Opposite Party ought to have either organised twin sharing basis for everybody and if that was not possible on account of odd number of members, it is only justified that the Complainant who was made to share a room with three people, be adequately compensated. There is no documentary evidence to establish that an offer was made to the Complainant regarding two options and that he had exercised his choice of sharing the room with one more person in order to avoid any additional payment. The tour confirmation form shows the payment details, the total tour cost and that it is on a twin sharing basis. Separate rates clearly mentioned for a child with bed with the specific ages and for a child with no bed and hence having accepted the amounts towards twin sharing and also having regard to the letter given by the tour operators that triple sharing accommodation was given for three, we are of the considered view that both the Fora below have based their finding on correct appreciation of facts. The inconvenience which a person has to undergo while travelling in a group for 18 long days in a foreign country, which is Europe herein, and where the tour passengers have to go from place to place and report at the correct time, having to share a room with 3 people, when initially he had paid for a twin sharing room and was mentally prepared for the same, cannot be undermined.
Hence we are of the considered view that the amounts awarded by the Fora below i.e. Rs. 42,667/-, with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/- is reasonable and does not warrant our interference, specially keeping in view our limited Revisional Jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (11) SCC 269. Needless to add, the fora below have also not awarded any interest on the amounts awarded any interest on the amounts to be refunded.
Additionally, this Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 84 days and a brief perusal of the Application seeking condonation of delay shows no substantial reasons having been given. It is relevant to mention here that not a single date has been mentioned in the Application and in fact the number of days has also been left blank. In the absent of any cogent reasons to condone the delay, we are of the considered opinion that this Revision Petition is also barred by limitation.
In the result, for all the aforenoed reasons this Revision Petition is dismissed.