DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __101_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING :_7.9.2018         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 04.12.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :            Aloke Chaudhuri, 28/24, Station Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata-31. 

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Anirban Dutta, Office: M/s Purushottam Tours and Travels, Garia Station Road, Choto Bottal, Kolkata – 84, Resident: Flat no.404, Narmada Complex, 778, Sonarpur Station Road, P.O Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 103.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

              Non-refund of the money by the Tour and Travel Company i.e the O.P has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12 , C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

               The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

              The O.P conducts tour and travel business under the name and style “M/s Purushottam Tours & Travels”. The complainant gave him Rs.12000/- for booking two rooms in a hotel at Puri in Orissa for 4 days i.e 2.6.2017 to 6.6.2017. Accordingly, the O.P arranged for booking two rooms in “Hotel Dreamland” at Puri ,having received Rs.12000/- from the complainant and the booking was also confirmed by him. But, ultimately the complainant had to cancel the booking ,because of the fact that his younger brother died suddenly on 19.5.2017. So, the complainant demanded return of Rs.12000/- which was refused by the O.P. Now, the complainant prays for return of the said money and also for compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.

              Summons is served upon the O.P as per postal track report. But, he does not appear to contest the case and ,therefore, the case is heard exparte  against him.

                Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether any deficiency in service is caused by the O.P by not giving return of the money received by him from the complainant?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

          Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 16.11.2018.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1  :

               The allegation brought by the complainant in this case against the O.P is that the O.P did not give return of the money received by him from the complainant and that he thereby caused deficiency in service.

              Let us see now, whether the O.P has actually caused any deficiency in service as defined in C.P Act, 1986 by having not returned the money to the complainant . The term “Deficiency” is defined in section 2(1)(g) of the C.P Act, 1986 and it is defined as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in, inter alia, the performance which has been undertaken to be performed by the O.P in pursuance of the contract.

             Coming the facts of the instant case, it is found that complainant entrusted the O.P to book two hotels at Puri and, therefore, the O.P received Rs.12,000/- from the complainant as initial payment. The balance payment was to be made by the complainant at the Hotel. The O.P was entrusted to discharge the service of booking two rooms in a Hotel at Puri. He booked two rooms at Puri and also confirmed the booking. So, the service for which the O.P was entrusted has been discharged successfully by the O.P and there remains no fault, imperfection or inadequacy ,in so far as, the discharge of the said service by the O.P is concerned. In the circumstances, we fail to find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P in so far as the discharge of the said service is concerned.

              That apart, the complainant has not been able to plead or prove that there was an agreement between him and the O.P and that the O.P thereby agreed to return the booking money whenever the booking is cancelled by the complainant.  In absence of such an agreement, it cannot be said that the O.P is bound to refund the money received by him from the complainant for the purpose of booking hotel at Puri.

              This being the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel no difficulty whatsoever to say that there is no merits in the case of the complainant and, therefore, the case deserves to be dismissed.

              In the result, the case fails.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.P .

There is no order passed as to the costs of the proceedings ,considering the facts and circumstances of the case.  

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                          Member                                       Member

          Dictated and corrected by me

                                    President