RAJENDRA SINGH vs Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. And Ors.

TREES changing colours in autumn in Kashmir. Golden -brown rice fields, streams bringing down crystal -clear water from the mountains, cicada insects "singing": these are the indicators of the breath -taking beauty and grandeur of the autumn in Kashmir.

P class="subparagraph">The Petitioner/Complainant Sh. Rajendra Singh availed one tour package facility for expedition to Jammu and Kashmir from the M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Limited, Jaipur, the Respondent/OP No. 1 and Respondent/OP No. 2, Meena Travels. He paid Rs. 3,70,00 towards package which includes travel, accommodation and Air fare expenses. As agreed by the OPs the Complainant did not get promised hotels. Also, the Complainant alleged that the OP charged him more for the air tickets. Therefore, alleging the deficiency and negligence committed by OPs, the Complainant on 7.8.2007 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum'') claiming for full refund of Rs. 3,70,000 alongwith Rs. 2,00,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,00,000 for physical harassment charges and Rs. 5,000 for cost of litigation.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 27.1.2010. The complainant preferred a First Appeal No. FA/1835/2010, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, ''State Commission'') Jaipur. The appeal was partly allowed and directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 2,991 which was taken in excess by the OPs, along with Rs. 5,000 as a cost of litigation.

Heard both the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that that booking was made after assurance given by OP for the stay specifically at Pahalgam Resort (Kashmir), Hotel Ambika (Katra) and Hotel Sawai (Jammu). Because of the said assurance only, the Complainant accepted the tour package from the OP. But, OP did not keep its promise, in the alternative the OP provided different low cost budget hotels with compromised facilities. The OPs on inquiry did not satisfy the complainant and just washed off their hands by telling that there was unavailability of the accommodation at Pahalgam Resort. No complete sightseeing was provided as per the schedule. Hence, it was deficiency in service. The rival arguments from the Counsel for the OP vehemently denied about any tour assurances, there was no deficiency, OPs provided other good hotels of same tariffs.

AFTER considering the evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that, OPs did not provide accommodation at Pahalgam Resort and the other hotels as per itinerary, but made provision in other hotels as an alternative. OPs have not placed any record to prove that the tariffs and facilities were same at the alternative hotels. It should be borne in mind that, in this electronic era any person/tourist make the booking with care and caution after detailed search/surfing through the various websites of hotels, tourist places. He will be attracted by fabulous advertisement, assurances and discount offers of the travel organizers. The main intention of tourist is to enjoy the pleasant, comfortable, and hassle free tour. Therefore, the act of OPs herein amounts to deficiency in service. The OPs approach was not prudent and OPs would have settled such petty matters at initial stage only with an amicable means to avoid unnecessary litigation. The State Commission has allowed only the differences of fare Rs. 2991 which the Complainant paid in excess, and the cost of Rs. 5,000 but State Commission has ignored the liability of OPs for the deficiency in service. The complaint is pending since the year 2007. Therefore, it will be just and proper to grant lump sum compensation. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the OP -1 Thomas Cook is directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant within 60 days, otherwise it will carry further interest @ 12% pa till its realization. The parties are directed to bear their own cost.