Back
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMIsSION: HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.414 OF 20220
AGAINST ORDERs IN CC.NO.179/2018, DISTRIÇT CONSUMER
COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between
Dr.G.Shankaraiah, Ph.D.
Occ: Retired from Indian Air Force,
H.No.1-5-95/3, Sri Laxmi Nagar Colony,
Old Alwal, Secunderabad - 500 010
District-Medchal-Telangana.
Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s.R V Tours & Travels,
Rep. by Mr. Ramana,Managing Partner,
Having office at 12-6-11/4, 3rd Floor,
Bhagyanagar Complex, Opp: BJP Office,
Metro Pillar No.15, Hukatpally,
R.R.District - 500 072.
Respondent/Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appéllant/omplainant: M/s. K.Vijayender Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party: Deemed served
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT,
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO
Order
1.This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.06.2020 of the District
Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, made in cc.No.179/2018.
The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondent is the
Opposite Party in C¢ No.179/2018.
For the sake pf convenience, the parties are described as
arrayed in the complaint.
2. Briely stated, the facts are:
The Complainant, a retired Air force employee booked a tour
3. package with the Opposite Party to "Kailash Manas Sarovar Yatra"
commencing on 22.d6.2018 for 14 days. He paid the entire amount
of Rs.1,35,000/- along with Rs.6,750/- GST in three installments
and was provided with the itinerary sheet. It is his contention that
after reaching Kathmandu he was told that since he was above 60
years, he would not be permitted to undertake second day and
third day parikrama?to Mount Kailash. Although he completed the
14 kms by walk to Derapukh, he was not allowed to go further. He
conveyed his dissatisfaction to the Opposite. Parties but since they
failed to respond, he/had no other alternative but to file the present
complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party.
4. The Opposite Party filed their written version admitting that
they had launched tour to Kailash Manas Sarovar for a period of
14 days commencing from 22.06.2018 costing Rs.1,65,000/-. They
submit that there yas a demo of the parikrama explained by a
Nepal "Ecotech" Manager and clearly cxplained that because of the
weather conditions jand the Government not permitting anyone
above the age of 60 years, they could not allow the three day
parikrama. They haye also submitted that they received a letter on
16.06.2018 from "Bhimal Acotech Travel" from Kathmandu that
the Chinese Government Authorities are not allowing him since he
is aged above 60 years for the 2nd and 3rd day of parikrama. Sincec
permission was not granted and it was unsafe to travel, there is no
deficiency on their part and they pray to dismiss the complaint
with costs.
5. Before the Di_trict Forum, the Complainant filed evidence
affidavit and Ex.Al tp All marked on his behalf. Evidence afidavit
of Opposite Party filed. Ex.BI to B7 are marked on behalf of the
Opposite Party.
6. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering
the material on reqprd, allowed the complaint and directed the
Opposite Party to pay' an amount of Rs.25,000/-
towards
compensation for the disappointment of the Complainant and
further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
Time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of this order and
on failure to comply ihe said order, the Opposite Party shall pay an
amount of Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages to the Complainant.
7. Aggrieved by / the said order of the District Forum, the
Appellant/Complainant filed this appeal contending that the
Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The Forum. below although clearly averred that there is
deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Opposite
Party, failed to apprecia
