Home >> Core Services
>> Gist of Judgement
Gist of Judgement
|
|
Court : DELHI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Appeal No:-NO. 366 OF 2005
M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Mr. Joseph A. Fernanes & Other
Brief Facts:-
The present petition is being filed against the
order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the State Commission, Bangalore
in against O.C. whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has awarded
compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation alongwith interest
@25% p.a. from the date of the order of the District Forum till
realization. The only issue involved in this Revision Petition is
whether the Revision Petitioner resorted to in unfair trade practice
in falsely advertising details about the “Star Cruise”.
The Respondents Mr. and Mrs. Fernandes had booked
for a tour from Bangalore to Singapore-Malaysia and back with the
Revision Petitioner’s company, Cox & Kings. So far as
the tour from Singapore to Malaysia and back is concerned, it is
by cruise, Star Cruise Services for which the Respondents have been
charged has called the Cruise as “Two nights /three days cruise”.
The Star cruises confirmation voucher given to the Respondents however
mentioned the embarkation and disembarkation timings as “Leave
Singapore at 23.59 hours on 17.4.2002 and arrive at Singapore on
19.4.2002.” The case of the Respondents, who is the original
Complainants, is that according to the timings given by the Revision
Petitioner, the cruise trip is only for two nights and one and a
half days whereas it was advertised as 2 nights/3 days Cruise. There
was, therefore a shortage of one and a half days cruise service
according to the Complainants. This view was upheld by the District
Forum which ordered the tour operator to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The appeal by the tour operator was dismissed
by the Karnataka State Commission which however reduced the compensation
to Rs.25,000/- with 25% interest p.a. from the date of the order
of the District Forum till the realization. The State Commission’s
order also states that the Complainant has no objection to dispose
of the appeal by awarding Rs.25,000/- as compensation. It is against
this order that the Revision Petition has been filed. But it is
also admitted by the Revision Petitioner that the amount as awarded
by the State Commission has already been paid to the Respondents.
The Revision Petitioner concedes that the cruise
lasted only for 2 nights and 1 ½ days. He, however, argues
that they have at no time told the Respondents that the cruise would
be for two nights and three days. At the same time, they agreed
that the star cruise services for which the Respondents have been
charged are called as “Two nights/Three days . It is further
argued that the Respondents are highly qualified persons and have
signed the booking form after careful reading and understanding
the contents of the said documents and contents of the terms and
conditions and booking conditions As against this, the argument
of the Respondents is that the Revision Petitioner fully well knew
that the cruise actually last only for one and a half days but they
had falsely represented that the cruise is for 3 days. They have
thus been cheated out of one and a half days of the cruise. even
if they were aware before hand that the cruise last only one and
a half days as against the advertisement of 3 days. The choices
of Respondents are limited to the following : the only real option
available to the Respondents and the other tourists like them, is
to mutely suffer the false and misleading advertisement given by
the tour operators. The practice followed by the Revision Petitioner
falls squarely under the unfair trade practice ,The court felt that
the State Commission has taken a lenient view in reducing the compensation
awarded by the District Forum and court would have liked to restore
the order of the District Forum in full The court directed the Petitioner
to discontinue advertisement misleading people to believe it is
as 3 days but in reality it is only two days and one night . In
courts view, this practice by the Petitioner is not only a case
of misrepresentation through misleading advertisement but also an
unfair trade practice in the eyes of Consumer Protection Act.
The court dismissed the Revision Petition and
confirm the order of the State Commission with cost of Rs.5,000/-
to be paid to the Respondents by the Petitioner and direct the Petitioner
to withdraw the misleading advertisement under Section 14(1)(f)
and to give corrected advertisement under Section 14(1) (hc) of
Consumer Protection Act The order is to be complied with within
four weeks from the date of the receipt of the same or else it would
attract 9% interest p.a.
|
