Case nº First Appeal No. 779 of 2013 and 12 of 2014 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, May 26, 2014 (case 1. R. Suyamb Ananthan and Others, 2. M/s. Cox and Kings Limited through its Authorized Representative, Tamil Nadu and M/s. Cox and Kings Limited represented by its Deputy Manager (Legal), Maharashtra Vs 1. M/s. Cox and Kings, Tamil Nadu and M/s. Cox and Kings, Maharashtra, 2. R. Suyamb Ananthan and Others)
| Judge | For R. Suyamb Aanthan: Mr. B. Nikhil Swami, Advocate and For M/s. Cox & Kings: Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate |
| President | K.S. Chaudhari, (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | May 26, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
-
These two First Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 92 of 2011, filed by the complainant/appellant R. Suyamb Ananthan & Ors., vide which the said complaint was partly allowed. Both the parties have filed appeals against this order, which are being disposed off by this order and a copy of the same should be placed on each file.
-
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there are six complainants consisting of R. Suyamb Ananthan, his wife S. Chitra, his son S. Pradeep, his daughter S. Janani, his wife's brother, P. Muruganantham and their family friend S. Shafiq Ali Ahamed. The complainants' party decided to go on a foreign tour covering Thailand and Singapore for a week in May, 2011, for which they made bookings with the opposite party-M/s. Cox & Kings at their office in Chennai. It has been stated that a total sum of Rs. 5,61,000/- was paid for the said bookings. The complainants have alleged that at the time of booking the tour, the opposite party blocked the tickets only for five complainants instead of six, and in the process, they left out the wife of the main complainant-S. Chitra. On being pointed out that she had been left out, the complainants were assured that a separate ticket will be blocked for S. Chitra and there would not be any problem, as they shall be travelling in one group only. The complainants have alleged that the staff of the opposite party had an indifferent and casual approach at the time of booking, as they were more interested in watching a World Cup Cricket Match on the television installed in their office. On being assured that all six complainants shall travel together, the complainants proceeded on the said tour to Thailand and Singapore. It has been stated in the complaint that the first part of their tour, which was for Bangkok went alright without any glitches, till they reached Singapore. At Singapore, however, they were told by the local representatives of the opposite party that they had intimation about the booking for a family, consisting of four adults and one child only and therefore, it was not possible to accommodate six persons in the car, which was waiting at the airport to take them to the hotel. When they insisted that all six person belonged to one group and shall travel together, the local representative went back to seek instructions from his employer and came back after two hours with another car and took the six complainants to the hotel. The hotel authorities also informed them that the booking in the hotel was for four adults and one child only. The daily buffet breakfast was also meant for five persons. Even for sight-seeing in Singapore, the tour bus refused to entertain six persons and insisted upon taking only five persons, unless separate charges were paid for the sixth person. The next morning, when the bus came at 8.30 a.m. to take them to the city tour; once more, the same problem arose as the bus wanted to pick up only five people. When they offered to pay extra amount for the sixth person, they were told that seat was not available for the sixth person. Moreover, the facilities and accommodation booked for them were not satisfactory; and hence they had to move to another hotel by paying 390 Singapore dollars per day.
-
In nutshell the complainants have alleged that because of negligence on the part of the opposite party, they had to undergo a lot of mental harassment at Singapore because the booking was for five persons only and in the process, the wife of the main complainant had been left out. On their return, the complainants took up the matter with the opposite party for adequate...
To continue reading
Request your trial