AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), have been filed by an international tour operator, namely, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the impugned Orders dated 29.05.2017, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal Nos. FA/2016/736, FA/2016/737, FA/2017/118 and FA/2017/119. By the Impugned Orders, while partly allowing the Appeals, filed by the Petitioner herein, the State Commission has modified the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases filed by the respective Complainants, inasmuch as the State Commission has reduced the compensation of 1,00,000/-, to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents/Complainants, to 20,000/-. While allowing the Complaints in part, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainants a sum of 2,83,872/-, which had been deposited by them for their proposed China tour, within one month, failing which the said amount was directed to carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. Further, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainants a sum of 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental hardships and 10,000/- as costs of proceedings.
Since the facts and questions of law involved in all these Revision Petitions are similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed off through this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2013 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 2016/54.
Succinctly put, the material facts as narrated in the Complaint are that Pursuant to an advertisement, offering a tour package to China, issued by the Petitioner, the Complainants, husband and wife respectively, had booked the said tour, which was to be completed between the period 22.09.2015 and 03.10.2015, and paid a sum of 2,83,872/- for the same. They also submitted the requisite documents with the Petitioner. As per the information provided in the advertisement, all the expenses relating to stay in Three Star High Level Hotel, food and transport, for two persons were to be borne by the Petitioner. Before commencement of the tour, the Complainants were also assured that their arrangement for stay would be made either in Four or Three Star Hotel during the said tour. The Complainants commenced the tour and reached Shanghai City, where their arrangement for stay was made by the Petitioner at Hotel Ramada, Shanghai. However, the condition of the Ramada Hotel was so bad that the Complainants could not stay, as it was a normal hotel and there was huge filthiness and smell. Even after several requests to the Tour Guide of the Petitioner, there was no improvement in the arrangements so made. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner on the said counts, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a total sum of 4,43,872/- on different counts.
Upon notice, the Petitioner contested the Complaint by filling its Written Version. It was contended on its behalf that the Complainants had completed the entire tour with full comfort and enjoyment and had spent 6 nights in Hotel Ramada, Shanghai, which fact was concealed by the Complainants. The said Hotel was a high class and clean hotel, listed in the list of 900 international hotels in 50 countries, and the Complainants were stayed in the said Hotel. There were separate restaurants, adventure places and facilities like Dinner theatre, gymnasium, dry-cleaning, lift, coffee shop, health club, high speed internet/wifi in the said Hotel, besides other facilities fulfilling world class standards. The Complainants had not produced any document, showing that there was filthiness in the said Hotel and it was not good for stay. The Complainants had also not suffered any loss. Therefore, the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.
On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and accordingly partly allowed the Complaint, with the aforesaid directions to the Petitioner.
Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal while reducing the compensation awarded by the District Forum to 20,000/- but maintained rest of the directions of the District Forum by observing as under:-
“16. In the instant case also, according to the appellant (O.P.) Hotel Ramada Shanghai is a 3-4 Star Hotel. According to the respondents (complainants) the above hotel was not clean and was not suitable for stay of the respondents (complainants). The respondents (complainants) requested the appellant (O.P.) for making alternative arrangements, but alternative arrangements were not made by the appellant (O.P.), which comes in the category of deficiency in service.
According to the Hotel Details, the respondents (complainants) stayed at Beijing in Ritan International House from 22th September, 2015 to 25th September, at Luoyang in Lee Royal Hotel Mudu from 25th September, 2015 to 26th September, 2015, at Xian in Titan Senbo Hotel from 26th September, 2015 to 27th September and Yangtze River Cruise from 27th September, 2015 to 30th September, 2015, but the respondents (complainants) had never complained regarding the above places. If the respondents (complainants) desired to make false complaint against the appellant (O.P.), then the respondents (complainants) could have made complaint regarding the above places also, but the respondents (complainants) made complaint only regarding Hotel Ramada Shanghai. It shows that the allegation made by the respondents (complainants) is bonafide. If the respondents (complainants) wanted to recover amount illegally from the appellant (O.P.), then they could have made allegation against the appellant (O.P.) for entire China Tour, but they did not do so, therefore, the allegation made by the respondents (complainant), is reliable.
The appellant (O.P.) has filed photographs Annexure NA-1 to Annexure NA-5. From Annexure NA-2 it is not established that the photographs filed by the respondents (complainants) are not relating to Hotel Ramada Shanghai. Even in Second Photograph of Annexure NA-3, the name of Hotel is not mentioned, therefore, merely filing photographs by the appellant (O.P.), it cannot be held that photographs filed by the appellant (O.P.) are relating to Hotel Ramada Shanghai and Hotel Ramada Shanghai is 3 or 4 star hotel, therefore, the allegations made by the respondents (complainants) are unrebutted, hence, the allegations made by the respondents (complainants) are reliable and established. The finding recorded by the District Forum regarding refund of the amount to the respondents (complainants), is just and proper. The facts of the judgments cited by the appellant (O.P.) are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, therefore, they are not helpful to the appellant (O.P.).
Now we shall examine whether the respondents (complainants) are entitled to get 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards mental harassment ?
Learned District Forum, has directed the appellant (O.P.) to refund amount of 2,83,872/- to the respondents (complainants). 21. The respondents (complainants) pleaded in para 4 of the complaint that the date of tour of China was fixed for the period from 22.09.2015 to 03.10.2015. It means from 22.09.2015 to 27.09.2015, the respondents (complainants) availed 6 days of programme and they stayed at Ritan international House, Beijing, from 22.09.2015 to 25.09.2015, Lee Royal Hotel Mudu, Luoyang, from 25.09.2015 to 26.09.2015 and Titan Senbo Hotel, Xian from 26.09.2015 to 27.09.2015, and Yangtze River Cruise from 27th September, 2015 to 30th September, 2015 and enjoyed at the above places without any complaint, even then the District Forum directed the appellant (O.P.) to refund the entire amount, which was paid by the respondents (complainants) to the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the amount of 1,00,000/- awarded to the respondents (complainants) towards compensation for mental harassment, is on higher side. It is just and proper to award 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the respondents (complainants) towards compensation for mental harassment instead of 1,00,000/-. The rest part of the impugned order is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.”
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission assailing Impugned Orders dated 29.05.2017 passed by the State Commission.
Mr. U.A. Rana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the State Commission wrongly upheld the finding of the District Forum regarding refund of the entire tour cost which includes the various services, stay at other Hotels, air-tickets to and fro, cruise, visa, travel insurance, sightseeing, meals, merely on the allegation of the Respondents/Complainants that their stay at Ramada Shanghai Wujiaochang was unhygienic and foul smell, whereas the Respondents had never made any allegation against stay / service at other Hotels. He further submitted that the Order passed by the State Commission is totally unjust, unreasonable and untenable and prayed that the Orders passed by the State Commission be set aside and the Revision Petitions be allowed. the expenditure in that behalf and other services utilized by the Respondents for which the Respondents had never alleged any deficiency or raised any allegation
Per contra , Mr. Rishi Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants submitted that there is no infirmity in the Impugned Orders passed by the Fora below and prayed that the present Revision Petitions be dismissed.
We have heard Mr. U.A. Rana learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants, perused the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum, other material available on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the Parties.
In the present case there is concurrent finding of the Fora below that the Petitioner was found deficient in service for making arrangements of stay of the Respondents/Complaints at Hotel Ramada at Shanghai, which was not a 3-4 star hotel and was neither clean nor suitable for pleasant stay of the Respondents during their stay at Shanghai during China Tour. However, during the entire China Tour, in addition to Hotel Ramada at Shanghai, the Petitioner also made arrangements for stay of the Respondents at Ritan International House, Beijing, from 22.09.2015 to 25.09.2015, Lee Royal Hotel Mudu, Luoyang, from 25.09.2015 to 26.09.2015 and Titan Senbo Hotel, Xian from 26.09.2015 to 27.09.2015, and Yangtze River Cruise from 27th September, 2015 to 30th September, 2015 and the Respondents/Complainants enjoyed at the above places without any Complaint.
Keeping in view the fact that the Respondents/Complainants had enjoyed the entire China Tour without any complaint/grievance except stay at Hotel Ramada at Shangai and the fact that the cost of entire China tour also includes costs of air-tickets to and fro, cruise, visa, travel insurance, sightseeing and meals etc., we are of the considered view that the State Commission erred in directing the Petitioner Company to refund the entire tour cost of 2,83,872/- in addition to Compensation. In view of above, the direction given by the State Commission to the Petitioner Company to refund the entire China Tour cost of 2,83,872/- to the Respondents/Complainants is set aside. However, rest of the directions given by the State Commission are upheld. Consequently, the Petitioner Company is directed to pay Compensation of 20,000/- alongwith cost of 10,000/- to the Respondents/Complainants in each Revision Petition within four weeks from today. The impugned Orders dated 29.05.2017 passed by the State Commission are modified accordingly. The Revision Petitions stand partly allowed in above terms.