ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 02.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 78/2015 in which order dated 06.01.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 427/2011 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. While the Respondent-1 & 2 (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and OPs before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s).  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 26.04.2023 (Petitioner/complainant) and 19.09.2023 (Respondents/OPs) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from other case records are that:-

The complainant paid Rs.12,000/- in cash and Rs.41,392/- via cheque for a tour package. The tour was scheduled for July 5th to July 9th. Upon receiving the air tickets, the complainant found discrepancies, including the return ticket being issued on SpiceJet Airlines instead of the promised Indian Airlines. There were no details provided about the hotel or contact person in Srinagar. Upon arrival, nobody received them, and the complainant had to arrange their own accommodations and transportation at extra cost. The return journey was also disrupted, leading to additional expenses. Legal notices were sent, claiming compensation for the booking, additional expenses, and inconvenience suffered. Consequently, complainant filed a consumer complaint in District Forum.

5.       Vide Order dated 06.01.2015, in the CC no. 427/2011 the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.41,002/- after allowing deduction of Rs. 12,390/- towards air journey by complainant and his family from Delhi to Srinagar towards booking amount of tour package, Rs. 63,500/- spent by the complainant as an additional amount and Rs. 2,50,000/- for compensation. 

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 06.01.2015 of District Forum, Petitioner/complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 02.11.2018 in FA No. 78/2015 has modified the order of District Forum and directed OPs to pay Rs.72,000/-.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 02.11.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

8.    The Respondent filed a reply and denied the assertions made the grounds of the revision petition. They argued that the contents of these paragraphs are incorrect and refuted entirely.

9.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

“14. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do…..”

42. Negligence has many manifestations — it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and passive negligence, wilful or reckless negligence or negligence per se, which is defined in  as under:

"Negligence per se.—Conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or