ARNAB KR.SARKAR vs SEEMA TRAVELS

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum. He and 14 others engaged services of the respondent, a tour operator to visit to Kulu, Manali, and Delhi during Puja holidays. All the necessary payments for the services to be provided by the respondent were made. Complaining deficiency in service petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum for himself and on behalf of 14 others. District Forum held that complaint could be maintainable only in respect of the petitioner himself and not for others as it was not a representative suit. Holding there was deficiency in service District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.

ON appeal filed by the respondent before the State Commission compensation was reduced to Rs. 500/-. Now it is the petitioner who is aggrieved and has filed this petition. District Forum on the basis of the record held that respondent did not provide proper accommodation to the petitioner in hotel in Kulu rather petitioner and others were huddled together and he was not given a separate room. Respondent was also to take the petitioner to Rhotang Pass but it failed to do so on the ground that there was landslide and the road was not clear. Then the complaint was that the respondent changed itinerary which he had agreed to follow. There were two other grounds alleged for deficiency in service by the respondent with which District Forum did not agree. It was the case of the respondent that accommodation for the petitioner and others was booked in hotel New Vikrant on 20.10.1996. But since party reached there only on the night of 20.10.1996 and 21.10.1996 hotel could provide such rooms which were available. It was the duty of the respondent to provide proper accommodation and to take reasonable skill and care for the party. It must have been a frustrating experience when the petitioner along with others is crammed in a room when the respondent had received full charges. In support of its contention that there was a landslide on the road respondent produced a letter dated 27.11.1998 from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation. District Forum was of the view that this letter was not genuine and gave its reason for that. No reliance, therefore, could be placed on such a letter. It was noticed that letter was produced much after filing of the complaint and while the complaint pertained to the year 1996, the letter was of the date of more than 2 years later. District Forum also noticed that while the arguments were being heard on 12.11.1998 the letter produced before it was dated 27.11.1998. Thus holding that there was certainly deficiency in service, District Forum awarded damages amounting to Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. State Commission, however, relied on the letter of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation. The impugned order of the State Commission does not show if at all it minutely examined that letter. State Commission was, therefore, not justified in relying on the letter. It, however, found that petitioner and others were in fact huddled together in the hotel rooms and petitioner and others were not given separate rooms, for each members of the family. Holding that compensation awarded was on the higher side it reduced the same to Rs. 500/-.

We do not think State Commission exercised its jurisdiction properly. There was certainly deficiency in service on account of insufficient accommodation to the petitioner and the tour to Rohtang Pass being aborted. Respondent spoiled the Puja holidays of the petitioner. It is with high expectation that a person makes programme for holidays and expects that whole of the programme will come through depending upon the promises of the tour operator and when agreed payment is made to the tour operator. Holiday package of the petitioner has been spoiled by the respondent who did not take reasonable skill and care to provide comfort to the petitioner and to stick to the promised itinerary. A tour operator is obliged to ensure that hotel facilities are available as promised. It must have been frustrating experience for the petitioner and others. If a holiday is ruined by virtue of breach of contract on the part of the tour operator, damages can be recovered in respect of the distress, disappointment and inconvenience suffered by the holiday-maker. In Jarvis v. Swan''s Tours Ltd., (1973) 1 QB 233, it was observed that it was natural to expect a person to look forward to the enjoyment provided by a holiday when it has booked far ahead. An award of damages for breach of contract is intended to protect a person against expectation loss. In that case holiday proved to be disastrous for a number of reasons.

IN the circumstances before us, award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner could not be said on higher side. IN fact, District Forum gave a very conservative award. State Commission committed an error in reducing the amount of compensation without any apparent reason. We would, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore to that of the District Forum. Petitioner would be entitled to cost which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-. Before, however, concluding we may refer to another decision of the English Court in Jackson v. Horizon Holidays Ltd., (1975) 1 WLR 1468. IN this case complainant was able to sue for damages representing the distress suffered by him, his wife and children. It was the complainant who had contracted for a family holiday on behalf of the whole group and was able to claim compensation on behalf of the whole group for disappointment. Revision Petition allowed.