Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
M/s. Hello Travel —Petitioner
versus
Harish C. Jain and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.45 of 2020
Decided on 27.2.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Alok Shankar, Advocate and Ms. Priyambada Mishra, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Tour agencies should protect the promise given to tourist.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) & (o) , 2(1)(r) and 21(b) – Revision – Travel Portal and the Travel Agency – Allegations against – Booking of tour package – Rs. 20,000/- was paid as advance by the Complainant – Hotel vouchers and related documents not provided to consumer – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice proved – Consumer had to make alternative arrangements for want of services rendered by tour agency – District Forum directed to refund principal amount with Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs. 7,000 for litigation charges – Held that, Award made by the District Forum is confirmed. [Paras 6, 20 and 23]
Result: Revision dismissed
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 30.09.2019 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. of Chandigarh, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A. No. 210 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 23.07.2019 in C.C. No. 657 of 2018 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. of Chandigarh, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.
The Petitioner herein, M/s Hello Travel, was the Opposite Party No. 2 before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Travel Portal’.
The Respondent No. 1 herein, Mr. Harish C. Jain, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.
The Respondent No. 2 herein, Your Tour Advisor Pvt. Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Travel Agency’.
2. Heard arguments on admission, on 24.01.2020 and 05.02.2020, from the learned Counsel for the Travel Portal.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 23.07.2019 of the District Forum and the impugned Order dated 30.09.2019 of the State Commission.
3. The dispute relates to loss and injury caused to the Complainant due to deficient services and unfair & deceptive acts of the Travel Portal and the Travel Agency.
The Complainant’s case is that he booked a tour package for Rs. 61,200/- with the Travel Agency through the Travel Portal. After paying an advance of Rs. 20,000/-, to the Travel Agency, through the Travel Portal, he did not receive the hotel vouchers and other documents. His advance of Rs. 20,000/- was not refunded. Correspondence made with the Travel Agency and the Travel Portal went unacknowledged and unanswered. He had, then, to make alternative arrangements.
4. The Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 657 of 2018 before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its Order dated 23.07.2019 allowed the Complaint.
5. The Travel Portal filed Appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 30.09.2019 dismissed the Appeal.
6. The facts have been appraised by the two Fora below. Both the Fora have returned concurrent findings, that Rs. 20,000/- was paid as advance by the Complainant to the Travel Agency through the Travel Portal, the Travel Agency did not provide the hotel vouchers and related documents, the advance was not refunded, correspondence made by the Complainant with the Travel Agency and the Travel Portal went unacknowledged and unanswered. Both the Fora have determined ingredients of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the Travel Agency and the Travel Portal.
7. Within the ambit and scope of Section 21(b), no palpable or crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two Fora below is visible, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.
8. The Award made by the District Forum, and as upheld by the State Commission, is as below:
[9] In the circumstances, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the OPs not only remained deficient in providing proper service to the complainant, but also indulged into unfair trade practice and thus, forced the complainant to indulge in avoidable litigation. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 with following directions:-
(a) Opposite Party NO.1 shall refund an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant;
(b) OPs NO.1 & 2 jointly & severally pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony & harassment due to their deficient act coupled with unfair trade practice, along with Rs.7000/-towards litigation expenses.
This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the
