National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon’ble Mr. C. Viswanath, Member
Revision Petition No.1146 of 2018
(CC/551/2015, Unit-II, Kolkata – Manabendra Saha Roy Vs. MakemyTrip India Pvt. Ltd.)
(First Appeal No.A/668/2016 in the State Commission)
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had booked Durga Pooja Special Tour for Dubai on 18.8.2015 and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently a tentative itinerary was received by the respondent through email dated 19th September, 2015 which included the package of site seeing of Dubai giving the details of each day tour programme. This email also demanded the balance payment towards the tour and subsequently the respondent paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 10.8.2015, Rs.1 lakh on 28th September, 2015 and Rs.46,959/- balance amount on 5.10.2015 and thus had paid total package amount. Three days before the schedule date of departure i.e. on 15th October, 2015, when the complainant visited the office of the petitioner for collecting the air tickets, an itinerary which the petitioner alleges was confirmed itinerary was handed over to the respondent which was quite different from the earlier itinerary issued to him through email dated 19th September, 2015. The case of the complainant was that he could not have cancelled the tour programme because as per the brochure of the petitioner, on cancellation of the tour programme 10 days before the schedule date of departure, the entire deposited amount was liable to be forfeited by the petitioner. The complainant sent an email dated 15th October, 2015 complaining about this act of the petitioner. The complainant thereafter after availing the tour programme filed the complaining challenging the act of the petitioner amounting to restrictive and unfair trade practice and also deceptive trade practice.
The District Forum after recording the evidences of the parties ordered as follows:
Peculiar factor is that in such a manner tour and travel companies like OP deceives the customers in that case it can safely be said that it has become a practice to the OP to deceive the customer in such a manner but as because complainant is a lawyer and he has some guards for which he has appeared and ventilated such an act and deceitful manner of trade on the part of the OP and prayed for redressal.
On overall evaluation of the entire materials and record and further the defence of the OP including their itinerary and contract in between the parties we are convinced that complainant has been able to prove the negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP company and also proved the manner of deceitful trade on the part of the OP and further they have practiced unfair trade practice what complainant and complainant has proved and OP has done the deceitful manner of trade and he deceived the complainant by taking huge money for rendering the sight seen during their tour which was their responsibility and obligation to provide it but they failed to do so.
In view of the above findings complaint succeeds and complainant is entitled to get such relief as prayed for.
Hence, Ordered That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
OP is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and also causing for financial loss during the tour because complainant paid huge money for that for deceitful manner of trade and for OPs unfair trade practice.
OP is hereby directed to pay the entire decretal amount of Rs.1,10,000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forums order OP has to pay penal damages Rs.5,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that OP is reluctant to comply the order in that case penal action u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.”
The OP being dissatisfied with the finding of the District Forum appealed against the order and took the same plea before the State Commission. The State Commission after perusing the evidences concurred with the findings of the DCF.
Makemytrip thereafter filed revision petition with the Apex Forum NCDRC. The defence of the petitioner before the District Forum was that on 15th October, 2015, the respondent as aware of the final itinerary which the petitioner was providing to the respondent for the tour and yet the respondent chose to avail that tour programme and now the complaint was not tenable.
Having considered all the arguments placed before them, the Apex Forum concluded as follows:
Admittedly a tentative itinerary was sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 19th September, 2015 on the basis of which the respondent booked the tour and paid the entire tour amount. The schedule date of departure was 18th October, 2015. Three days prior to the date of departure, the so-called final itinerary was given to the respondent. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that the brochure allows the petitioner to forfeit the entire tour amount submitted by the respondent in case of cancellation of the tour between 10 days preceding the schedule date of departure. It means that the respondent was left with no option but to avail the tour. This practice or this act of the petitioner not only amounts to deceptive act but also amounts to unfair and restrictive trade practice. Findings of the Fora below are thus based on the admitted facts. We find no reason to interfere in the findings of the Fora below. No illegality or perversity has been shown. No miscarriage of justice has also been shown. The petition has no merit. The same is dismissed