SANJAY GUPTA vs SOTC KUONI TRAVEL CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED

SHRI Sanjay Gupta son of SHRI Ram Lal Gupta, resident of 445, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and SHRI Rajesh Parhawk son of SHRI N.S. Parhawk, resident of 7-A, Udham Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, have filed this complaint against M/s. Sotc Kuoni Travel Corporation (Private) Limited, having its Registered Office at Sotc Kuoni House, 15th Road, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 and having a Branch Office at 3127, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager (opposite party No. 1), and SHRI Abhey, representative of the opposite party No. 1 at its Branch Office situated at 3127, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh (opposite party No. 2), under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants have averred in the complaint that they are the residents of Ludhiana and are inter se close friends. They had jointly planned to visit Europe along with their families in the year 1998. The family of complainant No. 2, Sanjay Gupta consisted of his wife Smt. Manju Gupta, son Master Gautam Gupta, then aged 10 years and daughter Miss Ishita Gupta, then aged 6 years, respectively. Similarly, the family of complainant No. 2, Rajesh Parhawk, consisted of his wife Smt. Meenu Parwahk, and twin sons Master Dipin Parwahk and Nitin Parwahk (twins), then aged 15 years, respectively. The complainants contacted opposite party No. 2 at Chandigarh, representative of opposite party No. 1. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2, had visited Ludhiana on 5.3.1998. After having discussed all the pros and cons concerning the Europe tour the opposite party No. 2 had settled the modalities of the planned tour. By way of advance an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) had been paid to the opposite party No. 2, who had issued a handwritten receipt, copy of the receipt is annexed as Exhibit-C/1. It has been averred in para 4 of the complaint that while receiving Rs. 10,000/-, the opposite party No. 2 had agreed and undertaken that during the entire tour three rooms shall be provided to the said eight members group. Besides issuing the receipt as aforesaid the opposite party No. 2 had also filled a Booking Form, and filled up the column - sthe name of the tour, tour code, departure date, room occupancy, names of persons taking the tour, their diets, dates of births etc. The tour was to begin from Delhi in India on 21. 6.1998 and was to complete by 11.7.1998 with the return journey from London to Dubai and then by 12.7.1998 from Dubai to Delhi. Copy of the Booking Form is annexed as Exhibit-C/2. It is further averred in para 5 of the complaint that the perusal of the aforesaid Booking Form would show that the opposite parties had agreed to provide three rooms accommodation. All the major members of the group were to be provided the rooms on twin sharing basis i.e. two couples to get one room each whereas the children of each of the two families were to be provided half occupancy or to say the four children were to be provided one room. The tour programme was finalized on 25.5.1998 when all the formalities of payment of fee etc. were completed. On 5.6.1998, the opposite party No. 2 had issued the advance/return reservation chart. Copies of the same are annexed as Exhibits-C/3 to C/4.

HOWEVER, at the time of the start of the tour the opposite parties had issued Passenger Tour Tickets with 2 rooms against three rooms as agreed. It has been averred that this is a case of Hobson''s choice for the complainants. They had found themselves in a complex situation at that stage. They just could not abort their plan and had to eat a humble pie. Nevertheless, the opposite parties had cheated the complainants. During the entire tour the complainants had to suffer due to wrongful conduct on the part of the opposite parties because it had become difficult to accommodate two adults and two children on one bed. ''The pleasure trip had actually turned out to be a displeasure trip''. The complainants had to pass through embarrassing situation during the whole tour. It has been averred in para 10 of the complaint that they had paid approximately Rs. 1,70,000/- to opposite parties in the Indian currency, and they had also paid a sum of $ 9072/- (equal to Rs. 4,00,000/-) in US Dollors. Beside this payment the complainants had incurred pocket expenses to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh in Indian currency. As such the complainants had spend over Rs. 8,70,000/- on the said pleasure/displeasure trip. It has been averred in the para 12 of the complaint that the lodging charges for the entire tour period for three rooms were $ 9172/- whereas the charges with two rooms were 9052, a difference of just $ 122 equivalent to Rs. 5,000/-. The complainants would have paid Rs. 5,000/- in case the opposite parties had demanded at the time of booking a third room. The complainants have averred that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in terms of the Section 2(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and they have prayed that they be compensated with the re-imbursement of the total amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- having been expended by them on the tour by way of damages and Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing harassment to the family members, humiliation and discomfort. The complainants are also entitled interest on the said amount to be reimbursed @ 2% per month since 21.6.1998 towards litigation costs of this complaint.

In para 19 of the complaint, it has been averred that no such similar complaint or proceedings have earlier been filed or stood disposed off except to the extent of a civil suit for mandatory injunction bearing No. 14 of 23.1.1999, filed by complainant No. 1, but it was withdrawn as dismissed because he intended to pursue his remedy before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. Copy of the order dated 21.9.1999 is annexed as Exhibit-C/5.

IN reply filed by the opposite parties, it has been averred that the complainants had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ludhiana alleging non-performance of payment/contract made between the then defendants and had sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the then defendants (opposite parties) to pay an amount of Rs. 10 lakh by way of damages. They have averred in para 2 of the reply that the said suit was, however, dismissed. The opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection saying that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the said complaint because the terms and conditions of the particular of Clause 12 of the Booking Conditions clearly specifies that the Court in Mumbai alone shall have jurisdiction, hence the opposite parties pray that the said complaint be dismissed with costs. The opposite parties have not controverted the contents of the complaint given in para 2 regarding the payment and booking of their Europe tour.

IT has further been averred by opposite party No. 1 that any persons undertaking a tour with them are bound by the Booking Conditions and the opposite party No. 1, hence they are absolved from any liability for grievance regarding service provided by independent contractor i.e. airlines or hotels to the complainants. Copy of the Booking Form is attached at Exhibit-A. In para 8 of the reply, the opposite party No. 1 states that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- paid by the complainants was by way of non-refundable interest free deposit. The opposite party No. 1 has further averred that the complainant No. 1 had signed the Booking Form after reading the terms and conditions set out on the reverse of the said Booking Form and they are bound by the same. In para 9 of the reply, the opposite parties have completely denied that they had agreed and undertaken that during the entire tour three rooms were to be provided to the said eight members group while receiving Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party''s Delhi Office had booked two rooms for the complainants as mentioned in the Booking Ticket, which was thereafter submitted to the complainants by opposite party No. 1. IT has further been averred that the complainants orally requested the opposite party No. 2 to change the said booking from 2 rooms to 3 rooms. The opposite party No. 2, however informed the complainants that it was not possible to convert the status of the rooms from 2 rooms to 3 rooms. IT has further been averred in para 10 of the reply that the opposite parties had agreed to provide 3 rooms. The opposite parties denied that all the major members of the group were to be provided rooms on twin sharing basis and one room for the children of each of the two families and the four children were to be provided one room. Hence complainants were not entitled any additional room to be provided to their minor children as stated. In para 13 of the reply, the opposite parties have denied that at the time of start of the tour the opposite parties had issued passenger tickets with 2 rooms against 3 rooms as agreed. They have averred that the Booking Form and reservation made by the complainants clearly confirmed the number of rooms booked and they averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint filed by the complainants, therefore, be dismissed being false and frivolous. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainants, Mr. M.S. Ratta, Advocate and learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate and we now proceed to examine the rival contention of the parties. The preliminary objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction is over-ruled as the cause of action has taken place in Chandigarh because opposite party No. 2, namely, Mr. Abey, representative of the opposite party No. 1, who visited Ludhiana thrice for booking the tour programme of the complainants and issuing the Booking Form on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. This complaint has been rightly filed in this Commission which has the territorial jurisdiction, because it has an office which books tours on behalf of the M/s. Sotc Kuoni Travel (opposite party No. 1). The terms and conditions which are given on the reverse of Booking Form regarding the territorial jurisdiction is not legally correct. The Booking Form clearly shows that 3 rooms have been booked, for two couples on the twin sharing basis and one for the minor children. The difference for booking a third room was also just Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite parties are deficient in service in providing the 3 rooms for the complainants and issuing a passenger tour ticket for only 2 rooms.

IN view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large and the opposite parties are liable to refund the difference of one room that is Rs. 5,000/- with the interest @ 18% p.a. from 21st June, 1998 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are liable also to pay Rs. 1,100/- as costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. Complaint disposed of.