SUBRATA DUTTA vs PEARLESS HOTEL TRAVELS

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE complainant who is a Doctor in profession purchased tickets for himself, his wife and his minor daughter to attend ''Rajasthan Tour'' from Calcutta to Delhi to Agra and back. It was a 19 days tour along with the additional tour programme. According to the complainant he was assured by the opposite parties that they would take liability of procuring Railway tickets and reservation for the tour purpose. It was also stated that the total cost of the said tour programme would be Rs. 18,574/ and the Railway fair from Howrah to Delhi and return journey from Delhi to Howrah would be on actual basis and would be charged separately. Accordingly the complainant paid on 26.7.92 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as advance in cash and the rest 18,000 /- was paid on 24.9.92. But on 2.10.92 the petitioner reached Howrah Railway Station and could not get the accommodation at the Train as there was no confirmed Railway Reservation tickets. He cancelled the trip. It is the case of the complainant that he with his family members were intended to participate in the said tour and were put to serious hardship and loss and mental agony on account of the default committed by the opposite parties. He, therefore, claimed refund of the entire deposited money of Rs. 20,070/- and compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- . A detailed counter has been filed by the opposite party wherein opposite parties denied that they never assured to procure 1st class Railway Tickets and reservation for the complainant and his family members from Howrah to Delhi and return ticket from Delhi to Howrah as such accommodation is not in their control and it absolutely depends on its availability. It is also contended that as a good gesture the opposite parties tried their level best to confirm the tickets and ultimately the Railway Authority enlisted the name of the complainant in RAC. Panel. But the complainant did not avail of that endorsement for travel by the Train. It is denied and disputed that the complainant has suffered any damage financially or mentally and the quantum of claim for compensation is questioned.

The complaint has filed a reply statement reiterating the contention raised in the complaint.

THE points which arise for consideration are :- (i) Whether this case is maintainable under Section C.P. Act, as it is a case of criminal as well as Civil in nature as prescribed by the complainant in the petition and pressed by the opposite party. (ii) Whether there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. (iii) To what compensation if any, is the complaint entitled..

Point No. 1:-The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 23,000/- in two different dates i.e. on 26.7.92 - Rs. 5,000/- and on 24.9.92 - Rs. 18,000/- in respect of tour along with Train fair. And it is admitted by both the parties Ld. Advocate of the complainant pointed out Annexures ''A'' & ''C in this repect. And accordingly the opposite parties issued three Exchange Orders No. 39, 40 & 41 on the same date i.e. 24.9.92 which have been the exhibit in Annexure ''B'' of the original petition. According to the complainant, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- before 71 days at the Exhibition on Tourism which was held at the Ice Skating Rink at Calcutta on 26th May, 1992. The rest amount was paid on 24.9.92. But the opposite parties after given assurance failed and neglected to keep their promise, assurance and commitment due to their laches and negligence.

LD. Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties during the procuring the Railway tickets and reservation for the complainant and his family members from Howrah to Delhi and return ticket from Delhi to Howrah. He has pointed out the Annexure ''B'' page 19 of the complaint petition in support of his contention. On 24.9.92 the opposite parties issued an ''Exchange Order No. 41''. Where it has been clearly stated that "for service one double for 2nd to 16th October, 1992 (Rajasthan Tour) two full and one half train ticket in 1st Class by Kalka Mail on 2.10.92 for Howrah-Delhi handover it Howrah Railway Station. This is the only written evidence which was exhibited in the application. In respect of this Learned Advocate of the opposite parties pointed out the Schedule of the Tour programme - Annexure ''A'' pages 14 16. In page 16, the opposite parties mentioned the ''Mode of Payment''. The complainant did not follow the same, but considering the reputation of the concern and intention of the complainant they received the payment which reveals a good intention on their part. He also pointed out Annexure ''B'' page 17 Exchange Order Nos. 39, 40 & 41 of the same date i.e. 24.9.92, wherein 18 & 19 i.e. Exchange Order No. 39 denotes that the reservation was confirmed for room at Delhi and Exchange Order No. 40 for D.T.D.C. Coach for sightseeing and trip to Agra. But in the Exchange Order No. 41, the opposite parties stated that Railway Reservation tickets would be handed over at the Howrah Railway Station only and there was no mention about confirmed Reservation of the tickets. In fact the tickets were not confirmed till 24.9.92. During that period O.P. submits that they tried their level best to get the Tickets confirmed from Railway Emergency Quota and ultimately the Railway Authority enlisted the name of the complainant and his family members in R. A.C. Pannel. LD. Advocate also argued that the Reservation of accommodation always depends on its availability and as such accommodation is not in their conrtol. The opposite parties endeavoured upto last moment and the intention has been shown in "Exchange Order No. 41" dt. 24.9.92, wherein it has been stated that tickets (Train) would be handed over at Howrah Railway Station only. And these are the conclusive proof that the opposite parties tried upto the last moment to collect Railway Tickets. There is, therefore, no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It may be pointed out that they had taken the step to handover the ticket (Train) at the Railway Platform of Howrah. We cannot, therefore attribute negligence or in difference to the opposite parties. The O.P. is neither the authorised booking agent of Railway nor this service was included in the package tour for which the complainant paid the consid eration. The extra amount paid for Railway Reservation by the complainant cannot fix the liability of the O.P. to provide confirmed tickets saved except the assist in this regard. Point No. 3:-In view of our findings on point Nos. 1 & 2, the question of awarding compensation does not arise. We may however point out that the claim is also fanciful and untenable. We are, therefore, unable to accept the claim.

THE complainant is however entitled to the refund of deposited money, a sum of Rs. 20,070/- which the opposite parties are willing to make on the surrender of the issued tickets and Exchange orders.

WE, therefore, order as follows :- (a) The opposite parties shall refund to the complainant Rs. 20,070/- being the Tour Charge and Railway Fair on the surrender of the Exchange Order and tickets by the complainant to the opposite parties. (b) In all other respects, the complainant fails and dismissed. (c) There will be no order as to costs.

Complaint dismissed without costs.