NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Sri K. Gururaj & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
M/s. Sree Saraswati Tours and Travels Represented by its Partners & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1597 of 2012
(From the order dated 27.01.2012 in Appeal No. 2192/2011 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore)
Decided on 21.3.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Subhasini, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Tour operator cannot be blamed for cancellation of tour due to natural calamities.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Tourism—Cancellation of tour—Complaint dismissed by State Commission—On account of natural calamities, tour programme onwards from Haridwar to Badrinath and Kedarnath was cancelled—There was no deficiency on the part of OP in cancelling tour programme on account of natural calamities— Rs.4340/- has been refunded to complainants which has been held proper by State Commission—Only 10% tour was completed by OP and afterwards on account of natural calamities, tour programme was cancelled and OP has not completed 50% of tour programme before cancellation—Complainants were entitled to receive back reasonable amount after deduction of cancellation charges—State Commission committed error in passing impugned order and dismissing complaint, on this assumption that 50% tour programme was completed—Impugned order is liable to be set aside and order of District Forum is to be modified—Respondents directed to refund balance sum of Rs.25,660/- to petitioners. (Paras 5 to 10)
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2192 of 2011 – M/s. Sree Saraswathi Tours & Travels v. K. Gururaj & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of learned District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners opted for a package tour organized by the OPs/respondents from Delhi to Badrinath/Kedarnath starting from 21.9.2010 to 28.9.2010. The complainants paid Rs.42,000/- i.e. Rs.7,000/- per head. Complainants also paid Rs.1500/- as extra money for six passengers to go to Kedarnath. OPs cancelled tour programme in the middle and complainants had to return back to Bangalore. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainants filed complaint for awarding compensation of Rs.58,500/-. OPs contested complaint, filed written statement and submitted that tour was cancelled because of natural calamities and denied any negligence on the part of OPs. It was further submitted that OPs have already refunded a sum of Rs.4340/- to the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of Rs.49,160/- along with 12% p.a. interest and Rs.2,000/- as costs. Appeal filed by the OPs was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as the respondents cancelled tour programme, petitioners were entitled to refund the amount along with compensation and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but the learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that on account of act of God, tour programme was cancelled and further submitted that petitioners have not come with clean hands with District Forum and proportionate amount has already been refunded to the petitioners and in such circumstances, order passed by learned State Commission does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is not disputed that OP conducted tour programme and charged Rs.42,000/- from the complainants. It is also not disputed that the tour programme commenced on 21.9.2010 and complainants were taken to Haridwar from Delhi. From the record it becomes clear that on account of natural calamities, tour programme onwards from Haridwar to Badrinath and Kedarnath was cancelled. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that there was no deficiency on the part of OP in cancelling tour programme on account of natural calamities.
6. Now, the questions arises that how much money was to be refunded by the OP to the complainants. As per written statement filed by the OP, Rs.4340/- has been refunded to the complainants, which has been held proper by the learned State Commission. Learned State Commission also observed in its order that in this present case only after completing the 50% of the tour programme, the remaining tour programme to Badrinath and Kedarnath came to be cancelled on account of natural calamity, which is not correct finding because, as per tour programme, complainants were to be taken from Delhi-Haridwar-Badrinath-Kedarnath-Delhi. OP has taken the complainants only to the distance of about 200 k.m., whereas as per tour programme, complainants were to visit Badrinath and Kedarnath also. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that only 10% tour was completed by the OP and afterwards on account of natural calamities, the tour programme was cancelled and OP has