SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 8919

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
1. R.V. Tours & Travels – Appellant
Versus
1.Ch.B.V. Sarma – Respondent
SC/36/A/96/2019



BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 96 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.112/2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

1. R.V.Tours & Travels, D.No.12-6-11/4, 3rd Floor, Bhagya Nagar Complex, Opp.: BJP Office, Metro Piller No.15, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad- 500 007, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.V.Ramana.

2. R.V.Ramana, S/o Chennaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Chief Executive Officer, M/s R.V.Tours & Travels, D.No.12-6-11/4, 3rd Floor, Bhagya Nagar Complex, Opp.: BJP Office, Metro Piller No.15, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad – 500 072.

………..Appellants/ Opposite Parties And:

1. Ch. B.V. Sarma, S/o Late Sri Ch. Gopalakrishna Murthy, Aged about 70 years, Occ.: Retired Employee, R/o Shermahammedpet Village, Jaggaihpet Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Smt. Ch.Padavathi, W/o Ch.B.V.Sarma, Aged about 66 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o Shermahammedpet Village, Jaggaihpet Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. Ch. V.S.Prakasm, S/o late Sri Buchi Narasimha Rao, Aged about 65 years, Occ.: Bank Employee, R/o Flat No.105, Kakarla View Apartments, Sainathpuram, Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. Ch.Satyavathi, W/o Ch.V.S.Prakasam, Aged about 56 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o Flat No.105, Kakarla View Apartments, Sainathpuram, Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

5. Ch.Ramesh Babu, S/o Late Sri Ch.Gopalakrishna Murthy, Aged about 61 years, Occ.: Advocate, R/o Flat No.305 & 306, Excellency Apartments Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

6. Ch.Sujatha, W/o Ch.Ramesh Babu, Aged about 56 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o Flat No.305 & 306, Excellency Apartments Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

……..Respondents/Complainants Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : Ms.V.Santhisree Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6/Complainants :

Sri CH.Uma Sankar QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 27 th DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, dated 22.11.2018. in CC 112/2018, where under the opposite parties with joint and several liability are directed to refund Rs.18,360/- towards discount; to pay compensation of Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.6,000/- per person, calculated at Rs.600/- per day; to pay Rs.6,000/- towards costs within 30 days, failing which all the amounts shall attract punitive damages of Rs.60,000/- in addition to interest 12% per annum.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainants No.1 to 6 having observed vide publicity made by the opposite parties which is Tours & Travel Agency, booked tickets for the “Gujarat Shivaratri Special Package”, for a period of 10 days commencing from 11.02.2018 to 20.02.2018; that they paid Rs.10,000/- each as an advance on 13.12.2017 and obtained a receipt; that within short-time, the opposite parties have notified 10% discount on the cost of tickets to the others and despite several requests made by the complainants, the said benefit was not given to them, though promised to look into the same during the course of time; that the complainants on 18.12.2017 paid the balance amount of Rs.1,32,780/-; that the travel was commenced as planned and the opposite parties arranged 06 buses altogether for 220 pilgrims; that despite the request of the complainants to arrange 2nd AC tickets from Udaipur to Ujjain, in lieu of sleeper class, the request was denied; that the request for the complainants to arrange the seats to allot them in one place in bus was also denied, stating that seats will be allotted on dip basis; that the opposite parties failed to arrange minimum facilities for the bus and failed to provide services like guide with ample knowledge in providing food supply properly without any congestion; that the tour Manager never heard the grievance of the pas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top