Cox and Kings Ltd. vs Roy Varghese

THESE three revision petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.4.2012, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in FA Nos. 510/2011, 511/2011 and 512/2011, vide which, while partly allowing the said appeals, the order dated 31.12.2010 in consumer complaint Nos. 482/2008, 483/2008 and 484/2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, allowing the said complaints, was modified. This single order shall dispose of all three revision petitions and a copy of the same shall be placed on each file. Brief facts are that the complainants/respondent No. 1 in all three cases, filed the consumer complaints in question, alleging that they had booked foreign tour in the name and style, "European Discovery Tour" with the petitioner, but they had to suffer deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner for which they had claimed refund. In CC No. 484/2008 filed by Roy K. Varghese (corresponding to RP No. 3416/2012), it was alleged that on 21.1.2008, the complainant and his four friends went to the office of the petitioner where the complainant and his friend/partner, Mr. Shaji Kuruvila (complainant in CC No. 482/2008) booked a tour and they were asked to pay Rs. 12,53,990 for the main tour and Rs. 2,39,976 for the optional tour under the family package consisting of total 8 members. The complainant and his partner Shaji Kuruvila paid Rs. 3 lakh as advance for the tour on 28.1.2008, and then on 16.2.2008, they paid the balance amount of Rs. 9,53,990 for the main tour and Rs. 2,39,976 for the optional tour. The places to be covered in the main tour were Italy, Switzerland, France, etc. The optional tours selected by them were Glacier 3000, Disneyland, River Siena Cruise, Lido show and London Delight. The tour started on 12.5.2008 from Kochi International Airport. The first optional tour was Glacier 3000 and that went on alright. However, they had bad experience with the next optional tour, which was for Disneyland. The complainants had paid 90 Euros per person for this tour against the actual price of 33 Euros per person. The tour manager of the petitioner/OP dropped the group at the parking area of Disneyland at 11.30 a.m. and asked them to return at 3.00 pm. The group went to the Park without any guide or instructions. They were not provided with any food and the children were put to untold hardships and miserables. Further, the tour manager failed to take them to River Siena Cruise for which they had paid 11 Euros per person. They were taken hurriedly for Lido Show, where they were provided seats at the last row of the hall and hence, could not see the show properly, although, they had paid 149 Euros per person for the Lido Show. They then asked the tour manager to cancel the next optional tour. The tour manager, Mrs. Marina also did not play her role properly. On their return, when they sent notice to the OP, pointing out the deficiency in service, they offered to pay Rs. 15,187.50 as full and final settlement, but the complainant claimed refund of Rs. 32,313.60 with interest @12% p.a. plus compensation of Rs. 2 lakh.

IN complaint No. 482/2008, filed by Shaji Kuruvila (RP No. 3147/2012), similar facts have been stated and same relief has been asked for, as mentioned in the complaint filed by Roy K. Varghese. In complaint No. 483/2008, filed by Biju Thottam, (RP No. 3418/2012), it has been stated that he booked the main tour for Rs. 2,58,902 and the optional tour for Rs. 59,994. The other facts mentioned in the complaint are similar as in the complaints mentioned above. The OP offered to pay him Rs. 8470.40ps. but he demanded a sum of Rs. 16156.80ps. as refund and '' 2 lakh as compensation.

IN their written reply before the District Forum, the petitioner/OP stated that all the terms and conditions were explained to the tour participants beforehand. Regarding the tour to Disneyland, there was no provision to provide a guide in the said Park. The petitioners however admitted that because of heavy traffic, they could not reach in time for the optional tour, River Seina Cruise. The cost of the River Siena Cruise was 7 Euros per person. It was stated that there was no complaint from other participants in the tour. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/OP, but still they offered a sum of Rs. 15,187.50ps. per family, without admitting any deficiency in service. The complainants cancelled the tour to London Delight for the reasons best known to them. The petitioner/OP also stated that the amount being offered to the complainant was just a gratuitous offer and not intended as a refund of the amount for the optional tour London Delight. The OPs were required to meet the cost of the tour because withdrawal after having exercised the option given earlier was not permissible but still they offered to return the said amount.

THE District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed relief as follows: "I. In C.C. No. 482/2008

(a) 228 Euros (for 4 Persons 57 Euros each) in equivalent Indian currency towards refund of ticket charge for Disneyland.

(b) 44 Euros (for 4 persons 11 Euros each) in equivalent Indian currency for the cancellation of River Seina Cruise.

(c) 250 Euros (for 4 persons 62.50 Euros each) for the cancellation of London Delight tour.

(d) to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the reasons stated above.

II. In C.C. No. 483/2008

(a) 114 Euros (for 2 Persons 57 Euros each) in equivalent Indian currency towards refund of ticket charge for Disneyland.

(b) 22 Euros (for 2 persons 11 Euros each) in equivalent Indian currency for the cancellation of River Seina Cruise.

(c) 125 Euros (for 2 persons 62.50 Euros each) for the cancellation of London Delight tour.

(d) to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the reasons discussed above.

III. In C.C. No. 484/2008

(a) 228 Euros (for 4 Persons 57 Euros each) in equivalent Indian currency towards refund of ticket charge for Disneyland.

(b) 44 Euros (for 4 persons 11 Euros each) in equivalent Indian currency for the cancellation of River Seina Cruise.

(c) 250 Euros (for four persons 62.50 Eeuros each) for the cancellation of London Delight tour.

(d) to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the aforesaid reasons."

Three appeal Nos. 510/11, 511/11 and 512/11 were made against the order of the District Forum by the present petitioner/OP and the State Commission vide impugned order held that the direction to pay Rs. 12,500 as compensation to each person (Rs. 50,000 for four persons) was not unreasonable. It was held, however, that the order of the District Forum for the refund of ticket charge for Disneyland was not in order and the same was set aside. The rest of the order of the District Forum regarding payment for River Siena Cruise 11 Euros per person and 62.50 Euros per person for cancellation of London Delight tour was upheld. It is against this order that the present petitions have been made, seeking relief that the consumer complaints should be dismissed.

DURING hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Cox & Kings Limited stated that so far as the ''Main Tour'' part of the programme was concerned, no deficiency had been alleged in the same by any of the complainants. The problem is stated to have occurred during the ''Optional Tour'' part only, but the petitioner had not committed any deficiency in service. Insofar as the tour to Disneyland is concerned, the allegation is that the services of a guide were not provided and the food was not given. In such tour, however, there was no provision for providing the services of a guide. The charges received from the complainants included visit to Disneyland and expenditure on travel to that place. The visitors are usually dropped at designated time and place, and then picked -up after a few hours. They were supposed to visit various events in Disneyland on their own.

REGARDING ''River Seina Tour'', the learned Counsel stated that it was true that the complainants could not reach in time for the tour due to traffic jam etc. The learned Counsel conceded that although, they were supposed to pay back 7 Euros per person, but they were ready to pay 11 Euros per person, as claimed by the complainants. He further stated that the complainant Roy Varghese and his party had not opted for the River Seina cruise, but still the consumer Fora below had given them compensation for the same also and hence, their orders were not in accordance with the facts on record. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the "Proof Affidavit" filed by the complainants in all the three cases were similar, although the factual position were different from case to case. Regarding the ''London Delight Tour'', the same had been cancelled by the complainants at the last moment, but still they had offered 50% of the amount charged to be refunded to the complainants.

THE learned Counsel for the respondents, however, stated that the orders passed by the Fora below were in accordance with law and should be upheld.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. In the impugned order passed by the State Commission, it has been directed that a sum of 11 Euros should be refunded to the complainants for the cancellation of ''River Seina Cruise'', 62.5 Euros each should be refunded for the cancellation of ''London Delight Tour'' and a compensation of Rs. 12,500 should be given as compensation for deficiency in service etc.

INSOFAR as the ''River Seina Cruise'' is concerned, the petitioners have conceded that since the complainant could not be made to reach in time for the said tour due to traffic jam, they were prepared to compensate them to the extent of 11 Euros each. It is seen that in RP No. 3146/2012, the complainants/respondents had not booked the said ''River Seina Cruise, but still compensation has been awarded to them by the Consumer Fora below. The direction to give compensation for ''River Seina Cruise, 11 Euros each, is ordered to be set aside in so far as RP No. 3146/2012 is concerned. However, the said direction is upheld in the other two revision petitions.

INSOFAR as the cancellation of ''London Delight Tour'' is concerned, the petitioners themselves offered the refund of 50% of the booking amount, i.e., 62.5 Euros to each person for the said cancellation. The District Forum and the State Commission have ordered the refund of 62.5 Euros each for the cancellation of ''London Delight Tour'' and the said direction is also upheld. Insofar as the Tour to Disneyland'' is concerned, the State Commission have set aside the direction of the District Forum in ordering refund of 57 Euros each. The said part of the order of State Commission is also upheld.

NOW , coming to the payment of compensation to the complainant, an examination of the facts and circumstances on record reveals that the only failure on the part of the petitioner/OF has been that the complainants could not participate in the ''River Seina Cruise. The petitioners have given the explanation that due to traffic jam, it was not possible to reach in time for the tour. The State Commission had held that the complainants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 12,500 each because they were dissatisfied with respect to the facilities provided during tour. The State Commission also observed that the tour party was left in Disneyland without anyone to guide. However, the State Commission had set aside the direction to refund 57 Euros each for the tour to Disneyland. We do not find any justification to agree with the State Commission that the petitioners had committed any negligence in not providing a guide during tour to Disneyland. It is a matter of common experience that on tours such as visit to Disneyland, the guides are never provided and the persons have to visit the Park on their own. Moreover, the petitioners also did not commit anywhere that guide shall be provided during the tour to Disneyland.

IN the light of the discussion above, it is observed that the petitioners have not performed such deficiency in service, which may lead to the grant of compensation to the complainants/respondents. The only fault that can be attributed to the petitioner relates to the ''River Seina Cruise'', where the complainants could not be made to reach in time. The petitioners have explained that due to traffic jam, it could not be possible to ensure that the complainants could reach in time for the said Cruise. It is held, therefore, that the direction to grant compensation of Rs. 12,500 each to the complainants is not justified and the same is set aside. In the net analysis, revision petition No. 3416/2012, Cox & Kings Ltd. v. Roy Varghese & Ors., is partly allowed and it is held that the petitioner shall be liable to pay only a sum of 62.50 Euros each for the cancellation of the London Delight Tour. The revision petition Nos. 3417/2012 and 3418/2012 are also partly allowed and it is held that the petitioner shall be liable to pay 11.00 Euros per person for ''River Seina Cruise'' and 62.50 Euros per person for the cancellation of the London Delight Tour. There shall be no order as to costs.