BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.76 of 2014 Date of Instt. 03.03.2014 Date of Decision:03.01.2018 Tanpreet Singh Bedi son of Narinder Singh Bedi, age 40 years, resident of House No.426, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar. ..........Complainant Versus

1. KUONI SOTC Tour & Travels, Mohindera Chambers, 92-93, Rajinder Nagar Market, Near New Courts, Jalandhar through its Manager/Sales Officers Taranjeet Mahal.

2. M/s KUONI Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., URMI ESTATE, 95, Ganpat Rao, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 Through its MD/Director/Authorized Signatory.

3. Sh. Ravi Rajagopal, Tour Manager of M/s Kauni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., URMI ESTATE, 95, Ganpat Rao, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 (India). ... Opposite parties Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President) Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member) Present: Sh. RK Nanda, Adv Counsel for the Complainant. Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2. OP No.3 exparte. Order Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are doing the work of the Tour and travel and provide the services for the purpose of foreign tour. The complainant approached OP No.1 and 2 for international holidays and OPs suggest the complainant for Value Magical Europe Scheme to visit different places of foreign country i.e. UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Vatican along with his wife and two children, with summer offer, which is mentioned into the offer letter. The OPs assured the complainant that the total tour package is Rs.5,49,080/- including all expenses. No any other amount needs to be paid and also says that everything is mentioned in the offer letter. The complainant believed on the assurance given by OPs, accepted the offer of the OPs and all amount was paid to OPs No.1 and 2 alongwith documents belonging to the complainant and his family members. Before proceeding to abroad, OP No.1 and 2 demanded Rs.5,75,000/- instead of Rs.5,49,080/- and assured the complainant all amount will be adjusted later on. As per assurance of OPs, the complainant paid Rs.5,75,000/- to the OPs No.1 and 2. Thereafter, the OPs gave an offer letter to the complainant, same was duly signed by the Taranjeet Mahal on behalf of the OPs at Jalandhar in the office of the OPs and assured the complainant all expenses of their tour are beared by the OPs No.1 & 2, same are mentioned in the offer letter.

2. When the complainant and his family members went on tour, the OP No.3, who is tour manager of the OPs No.1 and 2, did not show to the complainant and his family London Eye in London and Gala evening in Paris. It was utter surprise of the complainant, when the tour manager i.e. OP No.3 had demanded extra charges for Disney Land in Paris and Mt. Titlis i.e. 575 Euro as per directions of the OPs No.1 and 2. Even the tour manager i.e. OP No.3 took 96 Euro as 2 Euro per day, per person extra from the complainant. When the complainant made objection, OPs threatened to the complainant, due to that the complainant under pressure paid all amount to the OPs, as passports and other travels documents of his and his family are in possession of the OPs. It is necessary to mention here that the complainant also paid 85 Euro per person i.e. 340 Euro for dinner in Paris with his family as the OPs refused to pay the same. As per offer letter, dinner charges will be paid by the OPs and the OP No.3 assured the complainant all extra expenses will be refunded to the complainant. At the time of commitment of tour, OPs No.1 and 2 assured the complainant that OPs will bear all expenses of travels, food and residential etc. But OPs illegally took 1185 Euro extra from the complainant. As such, the complainant gave an application to the OPs for refund of the extra euro illegally taken by the OPs, but all in vain and even the complainant gave a legal notice for refund of the said Euro, despite that the OP No.1 and 2 did not bother to return the said amount, which is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and accordingly, this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP No.1 and 2 be directed to refund 1185 Euro i.e. Rs.87,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till the realization and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.8500/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 to 3 were served, but despite service they did not come present and ultimately all the OPs were proceeded against exparte and thereafter, the OP No.1 and 2 produced a copy of order, passed by the Hon'ble State Commission, thereby exparte proceeding against OP No.1 and 2 was set-aside and accordingly, OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable as the averments made therein do not substantiate any willful fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or as undertaken to be performed by the OPs in pursuance to its contract with the complainant or otherwise in relation to the services provided by the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands rather concealed the material facts.. The group package tour for Europe departing on pre-determined dates, was opted by the complainant and his family on their own volition, as per their choice and budget. The complainant was duly explained at the time of booking the tour, that the OP company organizes several kind of tours, including group package tours, which are offered subject to the terms and conditions of the company, which govern the same. At the time of booking, the complainant was provided with all the material information as regards the tour description, inclusions, exclusions and the terms and conditions. The complainant having gone through the same, confirmed his and his family participation on the said Tour by signing the booking form, thereby admitting to having received all details, understanding the financial and other requirements and implications. The complainant was fully aware that part of the tour cost was required to be paid in Euros and the rate of exchange mentioned in the brochure/quotation was indicative. The rate of exchange on the date of final payment was to be applied for the Euro component of the tour cost. Further, it was duly explained and was specifically mentioned in the term, which was accepted by the complainant. The complainant was also aware before availing the tour that tipping anyone who is providing services such as coach, driver, guides etc., is mandatory in Europe and as explained in the tour briefing sheet a nominal tip of 2 Euro per person per day was required to be paid for the duration of the trip. It is further alleged by the OPs that the complainant has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum. As per the contract between the complainant and the OPs, it was agreed that all claims, disputes of whatsoever nature relating to the tours are to be got decided from Courts, Forums and Tribunals in Mumbai alone by exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint rather the Forum at Mumbai alone has jurisdiction and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the averments in regard to getting a group package tour for Europe by the complainant is not denied by the OPs rather the OPs also alleged that the charges in the shape of Euro was taken from the complainant as agreed between the parties. The OP has not illegally charged any amount from the complainant and as such, question for refund of any amount does not arise and even there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.O-23 and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After considering the rival contention of both the parties, we conclude that the factum in regard to purchase a foreign tour package by the complainant from the OP No.1 and 2 is not denied nor in dispute rather the issue in dispute is only whether the OP No.1 and 2 got charged excess amount of 1185 Euro from the complainant, which is beyond the fix tour amount of Rs.4,49,080/-, for that purpose, the complainant has brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA and offer letter Ex.C-1 and receipt Ex.C-2 and other formal documents.

8. Before proceeding further to adjudicate the matter on merits, we take an opportunity to decide, first of all the legal question raised by the OP No.1 and 2 in regard to jurisdiction of this Forum, the counsel for the the OP No.1 and 2 in his written argument categorically took a plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because there is a well settled law and precedent, binding and valid legally enforceable clause in the terms and conditions as agreed between the complainant and OP No.1 and 2, under the said clause the Courts at Mumbai have been assigned the exclusive jurisdiction for all claims, disputes of whatsoever nature between the litigating parties. The complainant cannot resile from the duly agreed an accepted jurisdictional bar. The complaint on this very short ground alone warrants to be dismissed/returned to the complainant to be filed before the appropriate Forum. In support of this submission, the OP has made a reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2016 SCC online NCDRC 179, title M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd, through its Directors Vs.

1. Gurpreet Singh & Another, 2. Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (Dhfl) and further made a reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble State Commission, Haryana, cited in 2017(3) CLT 101, title Royal Premium Club Vs. Vivek Singhal and on the basis of aforesaid judgments, the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 made a request that the complaint of the complainant may be returned being reason, this Forum has no jurisdiction, with the direction to file before an appropriate Forum.

9. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 and accordingly find that as per agreement/contract prepared and signed by both the parties in the form of Booking Form having terms and conditions on its reverse side, the said document is Ex.OP-1 and as per terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid document, the jurisdiction in regard to any dispute is also mentioned, which is Mumbai alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction, is incorporated in the said document, no doubt a cause of action also accrued at Jalandhar, but as per judgment as referred by the learned counsel for the OP, when there are more than one Court can entertain a cause of action and parties have by contract agreed to confer jurisdiction to one of such court alone, such contract is valid and the parties are bound by the same. It is clearly mentioned in the term and condition that the parties have conferred jurisdiction to entertain and try any matter relating to the tour in question exclusively to the Courts/Forum at Mumbai alone. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.

10. In view of the judgments referred by the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 and accordingly, it is ordered that the instant complaint is return to the complainant with the direction to file a complaint/suit before the appropriate Forum/Court and accordingly, this complaint is disposed of. The c omplaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room. Dated Karnail SinghHarvimal Dogra 03.01.2018 Member President [ Karnail Singh] PRESIDENT [ Harvimal Dogra] MEMBER