COX And KINGS (INDIA) (P) LTD. vs TEJ NARAIN SHARMA

THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the learned District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint No. 210/05 whereby the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 39,358 to the complainant besides Rs 500 for mental agony and Rs. 500 as litigation cost.

THE facts in brief are that the complainant booked a package tour for five countries namely England, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Germany and paid the required amount as the charges for sight-seeing, meals and stay. When the complainant was with the tour group, the Bus was stopped near the London Tower for a shortwhile. As per the appellant, the stay was only for half an hour. When the Bus was started, as per the appellant, the complainant was nowhere to be found and after waiting for him till 12.00 noon the Bus had to leave for the next destination. The submission of the complainant has been that he is an old man of 82 years and was all alone with other tour members who were either couples or family members. As per the complainant, he had informed Varun Travels who is the agent of the appellant, that he is an old man and having a fragile health, he be taken care of in his tour. It was assured by the above Travels that special care is taken about the senior citizens and the same treatment would be given to him. Further submission of the complainant is that at London Tower sight-seeing, the group scattered in sub-groups. He could not keep pace and contact other members and thus got confused. He tried to move frantically here and there but could not trace the group. It is said that the complainant then went back to London Tower, thinking that the leader will come back to locate him, but in vain. Ultimately with the help of London Tower Station Master, the police was called and they took him to High Commission''s Office of London. It was due to the effective help of High Commission that brought relief to him. The complainant has further submitted that all his papers including the passport, visa, luggage and even the money was in the Bus, therefore he could have been arrested as illegal immigrant without valid papers. It was the High Commission which ensures that the local Cox & Kings office arranges going to Paris. It is also submitted by the complainant that apart from the mental agony he had undergone, he missed his tour to Belgium and France. Even the rest of the tour, he could not enjoy because of this said experience. To this submission made by the appellant''s Counsel that the complainant himself had gone to loiter here and there, the complainant reacted badly and submitted that the allegations are baseless and absurd. He being an old man of more than 80 years would not have left himself behind to die in a strange country on the road of London. He has submitted that his condition had become pathetic and full of confusion. During the course of arguments, the complainant brought to our notice this fact that the Bus was parked in a basement about which no information was given to him. Even the mobile number, as alleged by the appellant, was not given to him.

As against this, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tour package was having a tight scheduled programme. If the complainant could not locate the group, it was his fault. In fact a search was made to locate the complainant but his whereabouts could not be traced till 12.00 noon. Under these circumstances, there was no option left to the group leader but to leave the place to reach the next destination in time otherwise further connections might have been missed.

WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by both the sides. The complainant who was more than 80 years old with a frail health and a retired Principal of a College himself appeared and narrated the story of unfortunate happening which is really heart-rending, hair-raising and pathetic. One can imagine the plight of a man of old age, left behind unattended, uncared and in a helpless condition. If we place ourselves in that situation, it is really terrifying to think of such a situation. The old gentleman might have been gone from pillar to post to find out the location of Bus but all in vain. We are of this view that proper attention should have been given to a man who is a octogenarian and who needed special care. It was in the knowledge of the tour leader that the passenger was all alone and an old man who might go astray. There might have been someone with him so that he could be properly taken care of. Finding that the complainant was not traceable, the local police could have been informed, the public address system could have been used or someone should have been left behind to trace the complainant but no such step was taken by the group leader. In fact, no serious attempts were made to trace the complainant. Something more was required to be done by the group leader in case of non-availability of the complainant. The tour leader should have thought of the plight and mental agony, the complainant was to undergo in the state of being left alone. The complainant in fact deserved a fatherly treatment which the tour leader failed to give him. We find that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant specially in the case of the complainant who was left behind at the London Tower to move here and there frantically to locate the Bus. On account of the above lapse, the complainant had to miss his tour to one or two countries. The complainant is certainly entitled to get compensation from the appellants. He has been awarded Rs. 39,358 as the amount of compensation which we feel is reasonable and moderate. It is really a sorry state of affairs for the appellants that instead of paying the above amount to the Complainant has further dragged him to this commission by filing this appeal.

KEEPING in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 6.3.2006 of the learned District Forum, Bikaner and therefore calls for no interference. The appeal has no force and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000. Appeal dismissed.