THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD Vs. DINESH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitions, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), have been filed by an international tour operator, namely, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the impugned Orders dtd. 29/5/2017, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal Nos. FA/2016/736, FA/2016/737, FA/2017/118 and FA/2017/119. By the Impugned Orders, while partly allowing the Appeals, filed by the Petitioner herein, the State Commission has modified the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases filed by the respective Complainants, inasmuch as the State Commission has reduced the compensation of 1,00,000/-, to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents/Complainants, to 20,000/-. While allowing the Complaints in part, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainants a sum of 2,83,872/-, which had been deposited by them for their proposed China tour, within one month, failing which the said amount was directed to carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. Further, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainants a sum of 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental hardships and 10,000/- as costs of proceedings.

(2.) Since the facts and questions of law involved in all these Revision Petitions are similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed off through this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2013 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 2016/54.

(3.) Succinctly put, the material facts as narrated in the Complaint are that Pursuant to an advertisement, offering a tour package to China, issued by the Petitioner, the Complainants, husband and wife respectively, had booked the said tour, which was to be completed between the period 22/9/2015 and 3/10/2015, and paid a sum of 2,83,872/- for the same. They also submitted the requisite documents with the Petitioner. As per the information provided in the advertisement, all the expenses relating to stay in Three Star High Level Hotel, food and transport, for two persons were to be borne by the Petitioner. Before commencement of the tour, the Complainants were also assured that their arrangement for stay would be made either in Four or Three Star Hotel during the said tour. The Complainants commenced the tour and reached Shanghai City, where their arrangement for stay was made by the Petitioner at Hotel Ramada, Shanghai. However, the condition of the Ramada Hotel was so bad that the Complainants could not stay, as it was a normal hotel and there was huge filthiness and smell. Even after several requests to the Tour Guide of the Petitioner, there was no improvement in the arrangements so made. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner on the said counts, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a total sum of 4,43,872/- on different counts.