ORDER : R.S. Sharma, President This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./2016/54. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainants and directed that :- (1) The O.P. will pay within a period of one month from the date of order a sum of Rs. 2,83,872/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two) to the complainants. (2) If the above amount is not paid by the O.P. to the complainants within prescribed period, then the O.P. will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the above amount from the date of order till realisation. (3) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainants. (4) The O.P. will also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupee Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainants. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainants are that the O.P. is doing work of Tour and Travels and the O.P. published advertisement regarding package to China Tour. According to the above package, the expenditure regarding China Tour has been informed Rs. 3,50,000/- and by the advertisement it has also been informed that there is arrangement of stay of two persons in Three Star hotel and all arrangement during tour, travelling expenses, dinner, transportation, and other expenses will be borne by the O.P. The complainants accepted the exclusive offer of the O.P. of China Tour and the complainants who are husband and wife, paid entire expenditure of exclusive China Tour vide cheque No.186487 and 186488 to the O.P. Thus complainants have paid total amount of Rs. 2,83,872/- to the O.P. As directed by the O.P., the complainants have deposited all the documents with the O.P. and the date of journey was fixed from 22.09.2015 to 03.10.2015. Thereafter the complainants have gone to China Tour, as per instructions of the O.P. and prior to beginning of the journey, the O.P. assured the complainants that arrangements for stay will be made in the Four Star or Three Star Hotel. During China Tour, the complainants reached to Shanghai City of China, then the O.P. made arrangement for stay of the complainants in Hotel Ramada Shanghai. During China Tour, the complainants reached to Shanghai City of China, then the O.P. made arrangement for stay of the complainants in Hotel Ramada Shanghai. In the above hotel, the condition is very bad and in any condition the complainants cannot stay there. Hotel Ramada Shanghai was not Four Star or Three Star hotel and is an ordinary and dirty hotel. The O.P. has not made any arrangement for the complainants, even then the complainants orally discussed with Tour Guide of the O.P. that there is very dirtiness and foul smell was oozing out in the hotel. The Tour Guide of the O.P. gave assurance to make improvement in arrangement, but he did not do so. Thereafter, the complainants continuously requested the O.P. and its Tour Guide to make arrangement for good hotel, but the O.P. did not give any response. Thus, the O.P. committed deficiency in service. Hence, hence the complainants have filed instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint. 3. The O.P. filed its written statement and raised preliminary objection. The O.P. averred that the complaint filed by the complainants is baseless and contrary to law, which is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No cause of action accrued against the O.P. The complainants have filed the instant complaint to gain illegal benefit, whereas there is no truthness in the allegations. On the basis of the averments made in the complaint, it is proved that the complainants did not suffer any loss and there is no documentary evidence regarding the allegations made by the complainants against the O.P. The O.P. denied the allegations made by the complainants against the O.P. The complainants have completed the tour programme with full facility and conveniently and only stayed 3 nights in Hotel Ramada Shanghai. The complainants have concealed the above important fact and mentioned in the complaint that they suffered problems and inconvenience during entire tour. The O.P. make arrangement for stay of the complainant in hotel Ramada Wujiaochang Shangai, which is a very clean hotel and is listed in 900 international hotels, which are situated in 50 countries. The above hotel is 3/4 Star Hotel. The complainants stayed at the above hotel and took full benefit of services provided to them. The complainants have paid a sum of Rs. The above hotel is 3/4 Star Hotel. The complainants stayed at the above hotel and took full benefit of services provided to them. The complainants have paid a sum of Rs. 3,33,872/- to the O.P. and the O.P. gave discount of Rs. 4,438/- and returned the same to the complainants. The O.P. assured the complainants arrangement for their stay in Three or Four Star hotel would be made, but arrangement for stay of the complainant at a very high standard and clean hotel, was made. In the instant case, the complainants did not file any documents which proves that in Hotel Ramada Shanghai, there was dirtiness and was not suitable for stay. During their journey or thereafter, the complainants did not make any complaint to the O.P., which shows that the complainants enjoyed the journey and now want to illegally recover the amount from the O.P. The O.P. did not receive any notice. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. In the instant case, no cause action was accrued to the complainants against the O.P. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service whereas the complainants obtained international level facility in Hotel Ramada. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The complainants have filed documents. Annexure A-1 is registered notice dated 09.11.2015 sent by Ku. In the instant case, no cause action was accrued to the complainants against the O.P. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service whereas the complainants obtained international level facility in Hotel Ramada. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The complainants have filed documents. Annexure A-1 is registered notice dated 09.11.2015 sent by Ku. Neeta Jain, Advocate to the O.P., Annexure A-2 is postal receipt, Annexure A-3 is acknowledgement, Annexure A-4 are journey tickets, Annexure A- 5 is Tour Collection Slip Customer Copy, Annexure A-6 are Electronic Ticket Passenger Itinerary Receipts issued in favour of Dinesh Kumar Shrivastava and Smt. Shashi Shrivastava, Annexure A-7 is Tour Collection Copy Customer Copy, Annexure A-8 is Travel Insurance Certificate of Insurance After Enrollment Under Globetrotter - Group Travel Insurance, Annexure A-9 and 10 is Key Information Sheet (KIS), Annexure A-11 is Tour document - Hotel Details, Annexure A-12 is Travel Insurance Certificate of Insurance After Enrolment Under Globetrotter - Overseas Group Travel Insurance, Annexure A-13 and Annexure A-14 is Key Information Sheet (KIS), Annexure A-15 is Tour documents, Annexure A-16 is Tour documents, Annexure A-17 is Tour Documents Local Agents Contact Detail, Annexure A-18 is Tour documents - Permit us to give you a few suggestions which will assist in getting the best out of your holiday, Annexure A-19 is Tour documents Annexure A-20 to A-24 are information obtained through internet, Annexure A-25 are cheques issued by the complainants to the O.P. 5. The O.P. filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is Brochure of Hotel Ramada, Annexure NA-2 to 5 are photographs, Annexure NA-6 is On Line Reservation. 6. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has partly allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay the amounts to the complainants, as mentioned in para 1 of this order. 7. Shri Abhinav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and perverse in eye of law. The District Forum has given it's finding without proper appreciation of the evidence. The respondents (complainants) have utterly failed to prove that Hotel Ramada Shanghai is not a 3-4 Star Hotel. Hotel Ramada Shanghai is a very clean hotel and is listed in 900, which are situated in 50 countries. The District Forum has given it's finding without proper appreciation of the evidence. The respondents (complainants) have utterly failed to prove that Hotel Ramada Shanghai is not a 3-4 Star Hotel. Hotel Ramada Shanghai is a very clean hotel and is listed in 900, which are situated in 50 countries. The respondents (complainants) stayed at the above hotel and took benefits of the services provided to them. The allegations of the respondents (complainants) are false and baseless. The respondents (complainants) have not proved by cogent evidence that Hotel Ramada Shanghai is not suitable for stay and the hotel was dirty and foul smell was oozing out, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is liable to be set aside. The appeal may be allowed. He placed reliance on Commercial Officer, Office of the Telecom Distt. Manager, Patna v. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, 1989 STPL (CL) 23 NC and Voyags India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., 2011 STPL (CL) 2108 NC : 2011 (2) CPR 297 (NC). 8. Shri S. Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (complainants) has argued that the appellant (O.P.) published advertisement regarding package to China Tour. According to the above package, the expenditure regarding China Tour has been informed Rs. 3,50,000/- and it has also been informed that there is arrangement of stay of two persons in Three start hotel and all arrangements during tour, travelling expenses, dinner, transportation and other expenses will be borne by the appellant (O.P.). The respondents (complainants) paid entire amount to the appellant (O.P.). During China Tour, the respondents (complainants) reached to Shanghai City of China, the appellant (O.P.) made arrangements for stay of the respondents (complainants) in Hotel Ramada Shanghai. The condition of the hotel is very bad and Hotel Ramada Shanghai is not a 3-4 star hotel and is an ordinary and very dirty hotel. The appellant (O.P.) has not made any alternative arrangement for the respondents (complainants). The respondents (complainants) told the Tour Guide of the appellant (O.P.) to make alternative arrangements, but no response was given by the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the respondents (complainants) were forced to stay in a hotel, which was not suitable for stay and is not according to tour programme. The appellant (O.P.) committed deficiency in service. The respondents (complainants) told the Tour Guide of the appellant (O.P.) to make alternative arrangements, but no response was given by the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the respondents (complainants) were forced to stay in a hotel, which was not suitable for stay and is not according to tour programme. The appellant (O.P.) committed deficiency in service. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal of the appellant (O.P.) may be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the impugned order. 10. The respondents (complainants) have pleaded that in Shanghai, the appellant (O.P. made arrangement for stay of the respondents (complainants) in Hotel Ramada Shanghai. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant (O.P.). The only question to be considered in the instant appeal is whether the Hotel Ramada Shanghai is not a 3-4 star hotel according to the Tour Programme and Proposal given by the appellant (O.P.). The respondents (complainants) have specifically pleaded that they gone to China tour, as per instructions of the appellant (O.P.) and prior to beginning of the journey, the appellant (O.P.) assured the respondents (complainants) that arrangements for their stay will be made in Three or Four Star Hotel. During China Tour, the respondents (complainants) reached to Shanghai City of China then the appellant (O.P.) made arrangement for stay of the respondents (complainants) in Hotel Ramada Shanghai. 11. The respondents (complainants) have filed hotel details, which is marked as Annexure A-11. Hotel Ramada Shanghai Wujiaochang was booked for the respondents (complainants) from 30th September, 2015 to 3rd October, 2015. The respondents (complainants) specifically pleaded that the above hotel was not in good condition and it was dirty and was not according to the assurance given by the appellant (O.P.). The respondents (complainants) specifically pleaded that they requested the Tour Guide of the appellant (O.P.) to make proper arrangements for their stay, but Tour Guide did not give any response. 12. The respondents (complainants) have filed photographs of Hotel Ramada Shanghai. In the photograph the bed sheet is looking. The respondents (complainants) filed their affidavits. The respondents (complainants) specifically pleaded that they requested the Tour Guide of the appellant (O.P.) to make proper arrangements for their stay, but Tour Guide did not give any response. 12. The respondents (complainants) have filed photographs of Hotel Ramada Shanghai. In the photograph the bed sheet is looking. The respondents (complainants) filed their affidavits. It is the duty cast upon the appellant (O.P.) to prove that Hotel Ramada Shanghai is a 3-4 Star Hotel. According to the appellant (O.P.) Hotel Ramada Shanghai is a very clean hotel and it is listed in 900 international hotels, which are situated in 50 countries, but no such document has been filed by the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the allegations made by the respondents (complainants) has not been rebutted by the appellant (O.P.). 13. In V.R. Vasudevan v. Cox & Kings Ltd. & Anr., 2013 (4) CPJ 92, this Commission has observed that "Eminent sites like London Tower Bridge and London Eyes not properly shown to passengers of tour group. Additional Supplementary amount of Rs. 40,000/- charged. This amount was in addition to amount charged earlier towards Airport taxes. Deficiency in service proved. Compensation awarded." 14. In Rajendra Singh v. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. & Ors., 2015 (2) CPJ 319 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "OPs did not provide accommodation as per itinerary, but made provision in other hotels as an alternative. OPs have not placed any record to prove that tariffs and facilities were same at alternative hotels. OPs approach was not prudent. Deficiency proved. Lump sum compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- granted." 15. In Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Arun Sinha & Ors., 2012 (1) CPJ 513 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Findings of Fora below are based on correct and appropriate appreciation of material and evidence brought on record. Compensation awarded does not appear to be harsh or excessive. No interference warranted." 16. In the instant case also, according to the appellant (O.P.) Hotel Ramada Shanghai is a 3-4 Star Hotel. According to the respondents (complainants) the above hotel was not clean and was not suitable for stay of the respondents (complainants). The respondents (complainants) requested the appellant (O.P.) for making alternative arrangements, but alternative arrangements were not made by the appellant (O.P.), which comes in the category of deficiency in service. 17. According to the respondents (complainants) the above hotel was not clean and was not suitable for stay of the respondents (complainants). The respondents (complainants) requested the appellant (O.P.) for making alternative arrangements, but alternative arrangements were not made by the appellant (O.P.), which comes in the category of deficiency in service. 17. According to the Hotel Details, the respondents (complainants) stayed at Beijing in Ritan International House from 22th September, 2015 to 25th September, at Luoyang in Lee Royal Hotel Mudu from 25th September, 2015 to 26th September, 2015, at Xian in Titan Senbo Hotel from 26th September, 2015 to 27th September and Yangtze River Cruise from 27th September, 2015 to 30th September, 2015, but the respondents (complainants) had never complained regarding the above places. If the respondents (complainants) desired to make false complaint against the appellant (O.P.), then the respondents (complainants) could have made complaint regarding the above places also, but the respondents (complainants) made complaint only regarding Hotel Ramada Shanghai. It shows that the allegation made by the respondents (complainants) is bona fide. If the respondents (complainants) wanted to recover amount illegally from the appellant (O.P.), then they could have made allegation against the appellant (O.P.) for entire China Tour, but they did not do so, therefore, the allegation made by the respondents (complainant), is reliable. 18. The appellant (O.P.) has filed photographs Annexure NA-1 to Annexure NA-5. From Annexure NA-2 it is not established that the photographs filed by the respondents (complainants) are not relating to Hotel Ramada Shanghai. Even in Second Photograph of Annexure NA-3, the name of Hotel is not mentioned, therefore, merely filing photographs by the appellant (O.P.), it cannot be held that photographs filed by the appellant (O.P.) are relating to Hotel Ramada Shanghai and Hotel Ramada Shanghai is 3 or 4 star hotel, therefore, the allegations made by the respondents (complainants) are unrebutted, hence, the allegations made by the respondents (complainants) are reliable and established. The finding recorded by the District Forum regarding refund of the amount to the respondents (complainants), is just and proper. The facts of the judgments cited by the appellant (O.P.) are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, therefore, they are not helpful to the appellant (O.P.). 19. Now we shall examine whether the respondents (complainants) are entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards mental harassment. 20. The facts of the judgments cited by the appellant (O.P.) are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, therefore, they are not helpful to the appellant (O.P.). 19. Now we shall examine whether the respondents (complainants) are entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards mental harassment. 20. Learned District Forum, has directed the appellant (O.P.) to refund amount of Rs. 2,83,872/- to the respondents (complainants). 21. The respondents (complainants) pleaded in para 4 of the complaint that the date of tour of China was fixed for the period from 22.09.2015 to 03.10.2015. It means from 22.09.2015 to 27.09.2015, the respondents (complainants) availed 6 days of programme and they stayed at Ritan international House, Beijing, from 22.09.2015 to 25.09.2015, Lee Royal Hotel Mudu, Luoyang, from 25.09.2015 to 26.09.2015 and Titan Senbo Hotel, Xian from 26.09.2015 to 27.09.2015, and Yangtze River Cruise from 27th September, 2015 to 30th September, 2015 and enjoyed at the above places without any complaint, even then the District Forum directed the appellant (O.P.) to refund the entire amount, which was paid by the respondents (complainants) to the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded to the respondents (complainants) towards compensation for mental harassment, is on higher side. It is just and proper to award Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the respondents (complainants) towards compensation for mental harassment instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The rest part of the impugned order is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. 22. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.), is partly allowed. Sub para (1) (2) & (4) of para 13 of the impugned order are affirmed. Remaining part of the impugned order will remain unaltered. So far as sub para (3) of para 13 of the impugned order is concerned, it is modified and it is directed that the appellant (O.P.) will pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the respondents (complainants) towards compensation for mental agony instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. No order as to the cost of this appeal.