UILS Intra Moot Competition 2022 TC -75

IN THE HONOURABLE

SCINDIA DISTRICT

CONSUMER REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

25TH OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUSTICE

CRL.P.No. /2022

Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust … Petitioners

Vs

Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioners

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviation .................................................................................................................. 3

Index of Authorities .................................................................................................................. 4

Statement of Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................... 5

Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................... 6,7

Statement of Issues ................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of Arguments ........................................................................................................... 9,10

Arguments Advanced .............................................................................................................. 11

ISSUE 1: Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust is
maintainable or not? ..................................................................................................... 11-14

ISSUE 2: Whether the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person for
VIP entry amounts to unfair trade practice? ................................................................ 15-18

ISSUE 3: Whether the act of Trip Makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a subsidiary
hotel rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the partying and loud music makes
the Trip Makers liable for deficiency in service? ........................................................ 19,20

Prayer ....................................................................................................................................... 21
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another
Art Article
Bom Bombay
Del Delhi
Cr. Criminal
Govt. Government
Hon‟ble Honourable
LR Law Reporter
Ltd. Limited
Ors Others
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
s Section
v. Versus
Vs. Versus
Vol. Volume
& And
 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Legislations Referred

1.Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Cases Referred

1 Alexander Educational Foundation v/s Chandrasekaran (1995) 1 CPJ 141

Pondicherry
2 Pioneer Urban Land And ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019In
3 State authorities and recovery lucknow development authorities v. M.K gupta.
4
Consumer Unity & Trust Society, ... vs The Chairman & Managing Director, ... on
31 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (2) 150, JT 1995 (2) 51
5 Divisional Management, LIC of India vs. Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy
6 N. Prabhakaran vs General Manager South Railway

Books Referred

1. V.K. AGGARWAL, CONSUMER PROTECTION (LAW & PRACTICE)

2. S.R. MYNENI (LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION)

Legal Websites

1. www.scconline.com
2. https://www.manupatrafast.com/
3. www.legalservicesindia.com
 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner have approached the SCINDIA DISTRICT
CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION, Eastern Pradesh under Section 34 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble District Commission.
 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.Every year a large no. of Bindoos go to the Prathnath Yatra, a pilgrimage dedicated to the Supreme God
of Bindoos. Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd., a travel agency, offered a tour package covering the Prathnath Yatra.
The Package price was INR 23500/- including INR 500/- as VIP entry charges. The detailed package
along with terms and conditions was released by Trip Makers.

2.The travel agency had a cap of 30 tourists. The entire package was purchased by Second Innings Old
Age Charitable Trust. On 19 Jan 2022, Trip Makers sent an email to the buyers stating that VIP entry
rates were increased from INR 500/- to INR 1500/- as District Police had revised the changes. Therefore,
an additional amount of INR 500 was demanded from each buyer. As the „full cancellation period‟ had
lapsed, the Charitable Trust was left with no option but to pay the extra amount.

3.The Prathnath Yatra commenced on 1st Feb, 2022. The pilgrims had expected that they would be taken
to Le Maddison, a 3 star property as per the advertisement, but instead they were taken to the Blu
Maddison, a subsidiary property of Maddison Group.

4.Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. Advertised that Hotel was situated in natural surroundings and provided a serene
and comfortable stay. But when pilgrims had come tired after visiting the temple, they were surprised to
see a marriage cocktail party going on in the hotel. The playing of music on amplifiers and dancing till
midnight disturbed the pilgrims and they had sleepless nights. When they complained about their plight to
the travel agency, they showed indifference and expressed inability to do anything.

5.When the hotel manager is asked about the situation, he said travel agency was aware of the fact that
Maddison hotels have started organizing other parties on its properties as a kiosk of Trip Makers is
situated in the Maddison Hotel premises.

6.Upon return from Prathnath Yatra Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust filed a complaint against
Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. In Scindia District Consumer Redressal Commission.Trust alleged that act of
respondent company of charging an additional amount of INR 500/- per person for VIP entry amounts to
unfair trade practices. Trust asked for an amount of INR 15,000/- as a refund pertaining to extra VIP ticket
charges. The trust further alleged deficiency of service on the part of Trip Makers and demanded INR
5,00,000/- for the discomfort caused to them.
 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust is
maintainable or not?

ISSUE 2: Whether the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/ - per person
for VIP entry amounts to unfair trade practice?

ISSUE 3: Whether the act of Trip Makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a subsidiary hotel
rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the partying and loud music makes the Trip
Makers liable for deficiency in service?
 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Charitable Trust is
maintainable or not?

ISSUE 2: Whether the act of trip makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person
for VIP entry amounts to unfair trade practice?
Yes, the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person for VIP entry prima
facie amounts to unfair trade practices because we as the members of the trust were clearly
cheated by the Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. who without giving any prior notice and information
suddenly surged the price for the trip and caused a heavy loss to its members (in terms of
money). Because if one want to have a change in the terms and conditions & thinking for it to
implement in the near future. It must have clearly stated what conditions can arise in the near
future that can make a change. But, during the formation of the contract only we were not
given any information with regards to this.
Yes, the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person for VIP entry prima
facie amounts to unfair trade practices because Trust was
ISSUE 3: Whether the act of trip makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a
subsidiary hotel rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the partying
and loud music makes the Trip makers liable for deficiency in services?
Yes, the act of Trip Makers to provide accommodation in a subsidiary hotel rather than a 3-
star hotel (as decided earlier) and thereafter disturbance caused due to partying and loud music
makes the Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in services. In fact, these acts caused
grevious hurt to the mental and emotional well being of Yatris, who had gone to this
pilgrimage for their mental peace and soul satisfaction. But rather than this, this had affected
their lives only.
In addition to this, late night partying and loud music continued for the whole nights, which
had worsen the lives of yatris and led them to pass complete sleepless nights.
 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Charitable Trust is maintainable or
not?
Section 2 (6) - "complaint" means any allegation in writing, made by a complainant for obtaining any
relief provided by or under this Act, that—
(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from any deficiency
ISSUE 2: Whether the act of trip makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person for VIP entry
amounts to unfair trade practice?

ISSUE 3: Whether the act of trip makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a subsidiary hotel
rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the partying and loud music makes the
Trip makers liable for deficiency in services?

1. Act of Trip Makers included in the definition of deficiency in services

The act of Trip Makers to provide accommodation in Blu Maddison, a subsidiary hotel of Maddison
Group rather than Le Maddison, a 3-star hotel (as mentioned in the advertisement) clearly shows the fault,
imperfection and shortcoming on the part of Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd.. The travel agency has mentioned in the
advertisement that Hotel is situated in natural surroundings and provide a serene and comfortable stay.
But in actual Marriage function, cocktail parties were going on in the hotel. The playing of music on
amplifiers and dancing till midnight disturbed the pilgrims and they had sleepless nights. When they
complained about their plight to the travel agency, they showed indifference and expressed inability to do
anything. Means there were shortcomings and inadequacy of performance which has been undertaken to
be performed by Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd.. It makes them liable under Section 2 (11) of Consumer Protection
Act, 2019. Also, As it is mentioned in the facts that “When the hotel manager is asked about the situation,
he said travel agency was aware of the fact that Maddison hotels have started organizing other parties on
its properties as a kiosk of Trip Makers is situated in the Maddison Hotel premises”. It clearly states that
Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. Were aware that Marriage functions and Parties were being organized there. They
knew that it might create disturbance for the pilgrims. Still they withhold this information from the
Pilgrims. So, this act of Trip Makers come under the Section 2 (11) (i) of the Consumer Protection
Act,2019 and make them liable for deficiency in services.
 10

Section 2 (11) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming 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 has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise
in relation to any service and includes—
(i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the
consumer; and
(ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer

2. Relevant case laws

Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra v. Amazon Development Centre India (P) Ltd. In the present matter, the
complainant Supriyo Mahapatra had filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 for „deficiency in services‟ against AMAZON. The complainant had placed an order for an
ASUS X450-cawx214d 14 INCH Laptop for an amount of Rs 190/- against the original price of Rs.
23,499/- by offering a discount of Rs 23,309/-, on placing the order for the same with the option of „cash
on delivery‟, the complainant received a confirmation on his e-mail id and further on acceptance of the
order, the complainant was assured with its delivery of the product soon. Though in accordance with the
facts as stated, the complainant‟s order was cancelled after a couple of hours and he was intimated for the
same through a phone call from the customer service department of O.P. Further, the O.P. in response to
the reason for cancellation stated that there was some „Pricing issue‟ due to which the order stands
cancelled. The primary issue that arose in the matter was due to no-response on behalf of the O.P after
continuous efforts made by the complainant through customer care service and e-mail in regard to a valid
reason for cancellation of his order, which finally forced the complainant to issue a legal notice, which
again was not responded by the O.P.
For the above-stated submissions, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum stated that the “O.P.
was not only negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant but also involved in unfair trade
practice; as such we hold there is deficiency in service by O.P.”. Therefore, complainant‟s case was partly
allowed and O.P. was directed to pay Rs 10,000 for mental agony as compensation and Rs 2,000/- for the
cost of litigation. [Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra v. Amazon Development Centre India (P) Ltd., Consumer
Complaint No. 42 of 2015, Order dated 05-09-2018]
Same like this case The Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. Has not rendered proper services and also it was involved in
unfair trade practice. Trip Makers could not provide 3 star hotel services and comfortable stay which
disturbed the pilgrims and when the pilgrims complained about it to the Manager of Trip Makers, he
showed indifference and his inability to do anything. Therefore, Trust should also be paid with INR
5,00,00/- for mental agony (Caused by Trip Makers) as compensation.
 11

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Petitioners humbly pray before this Honorable Court that-

In pursuance of serving justice and avoiding any undue suffering to the petitioners, this Court
vide its powers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and give compensation of an
amount INR 15000/- as a refund pertaining to extra VIP ticket charges. Furthermore, the
complainant seeks INR 5 lac compensation for deficiency in services on the amount of
respondent for the discomfort caused to the pilgrimage due to stay at subsidiary property and
sleepless nights caused by late night parties held at premises of the hotel.

AND/OR
Pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of Equity, Justice and Good

conscience.

And for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships, the Petitioners shall as duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Counsels for the petitioner.