West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/11/2

1.Sunandan Basak - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.In Charge of HI-Line Tour & Travells, - Opp.Party(s)

Sajal Ghosh

30 Aug 2011

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present

Sri S. K. Ghosh - President-in-Charge

Miss. Swapna Saha - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 2/2011

1.Sunandan Basak

S/o Sushil Kr. Basak

Raghunathpur, P.O. Beltala Park,

P.S. Balurghat, Dist- Dakshin Dinajpur -Pin-733103.

2.Subrata Bose

S/o. Lt. Sanat Kr. Bose

Sahebkachari, P.O. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.

3. Sanjib Kr. Roy

S/o Lt. Hareram Roy,

C/o Subhash Chaki,

Vill.: Nepali Para, P.O. & P.S. Balurghat, Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur.

4. Sadhan Ch. Ghosh

S/o. Lt. Nanigopal Ghosh

Vill.: Khadimpur Master Para, P.O & P.S-Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.……………………………Complainants

V-E-R-S-U-S

1. In Charge of HI-Line Tour & Travels,

20A, Russa Road, South 3^rd Lane, Kolkata -700 033.

2.Ranit Kr. Saha

S/o Radha Kanta Saha.

Vill.: Namabangi, P.O. & P.S. Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Parties

For complainant - Sri Sajal Ghosh, Ld. Adv.

For OP1 ……- Sri Debashis Roy, Ld. Adv.

For OP2 ……- Sri Bidyut Kr. Roy, Ld. Adv.

Date of Filing : 31.01.2011

Date of Disposal : 30.08.2011

Judgment & Order dt. 30.08.2011

Instant CC case No. 2/11 bases upon a complaint u/s 12 C.P. Act, brought by the complainant on 31.1.2011 seeking claim of loss of amenities and compensation against the OPs alleging deficiency in service.

The brief fact of the case is that the complainant decided to travel at Guwahati and Sillong during the Puja vacation. Accordingly they contacted with OP No.2 who acted as a representative of the OP No.1. Thereafter OP 2 made an arrangement with the OP 1 for the said travel. OP 1 stated that they can provide good quality hotel including attached bath room, hot and cold water, room servicing and other luxurious arrangement for the said travels.

The complainants paid the full charges of Rs.10,450/- for Guwahati tour and Rs.18,150/- for Sillong tour to the OP 2 on proper receipts at Balurghat. OP 1 made an arrangement hotel from 25.10.10 to 29.10.10 i.e. for three days for Sillong tour and from 29.10.10 to 31.10.10 i.e. for two day for Guwahati tour. On arrival at Sillong on 25.10.10 they took shelter at Prakash Hotel & Restaurant at Sillong. The said hotel & restaurant provided five rooms as per booking with the OP 1. But the said accommodation was much poor and sub-standard. There was no arrangement of hot & cold water and room servicing, attached bath and other luxurious facilities. On enquiry it has been understood that the charges become only 7,500/- by accommodation of room at Sillong whereas OP 1 collected Rs.18,500/- from the complainants. The complainants intimated the above facts through the Advocate’s notice to the OP 1 but in vain. The OP 2 also did not take any action regarding this matter. Hence the case.

OP 1 contested this case by filing ‘vokalatnama’ along with a petition dt. 3.3.11 praying for dismissal of the case as all the disputes legal claims are subject to Calcutta Jurisdiction which was printed on the backside of the reservation slip. But after the hearing the said petition dt. 3.3.11 filed by the OP No. 1 stands rejected and time was allowed till 14.4.11 for presentation of written version by OP Nos. 1 & 2. Thereafter OP 1 did not file any written version. OP 2 contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the OP 2 is not the agent of the OP 1 and the complainants made contact directly with the OP 1. All the monetary transactions were done between the complainants and the OP 1 without any intervention of the OP 2. On good faith OP 2 only supplied address and contact number to the complainant No.3. The OP 2 is not responsible for the said baseless allegations.

Upon the pleadings of the sides following two points come up for determination :-

POINTS

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief or reliefs as per provisions of CP Act, 1986?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1& 2?

Decision with reasons

Point Nos.1 & 2:

In the said case the OP 1 appeared through Ld. Counsel but has failed to file the written version as against the complaint filed by the complainants. The Forum is also given an opportunity to file written version on behalf of OPs 1 & 2 but the OP 1 has failed to avail this opportunity. In this situation, the order is passed ex-parte as against the OP 1. The Ld. Forum perused all relevant documents and papers filed by the complainants and OPs. The Ld. Forum perused all exhibited documents also.

It is fact that the OP 1 took Rs.18,150/- from the complainants for traveling at Sillong for three days i.e. from 25.10.10 to 29.10.10 and the booking was confirmed for five rooms in Prakash Guest House (Ext.3). The Ld. Counsel for complainants argued that the OP 1 took more than enough money but has failed to provide the good quality hotel rooms because the said hotel did not provide hot & cold water arrangements, rooms servicing, attached bath and other luxurious facilities. The OP 1 has charged excess prices to the complainants.

It is the view or opinion of the Forum that the OP 1 may easily filed complete written version as against the complaint. But the OP 1 has failed to avail the said opportunity. The OP 1 has also failed to adduce any evidence or to produce any relevant documents against the allegations contained in the complaint. Thus the allegations contained in the complaint remain unchallenged.

So in this situation there is no difficult to believe that the OP 1 has failed to provide the good quality hotel rooms though the OP 1 received more than enough money from the complainants causing deficiency in service on the part of OP 1.

The Ld. Counsel for the complainant does not file any relevant documents or papers by which we can come into conclusion that the OP 2 can act as an agent or representative of OP 1. Again Ld. Counsel for the complainant does not file any document or paper by which the Ld. Forum comes into conclusion that the OP 2 received a consideration money from the complainants, so these points i.e. the OP 2 is a agent or representative of OP 1 is not proved at this stage.

It is view of the Ld. Forum that the OP 2 is not responsible for the above facts mentioned earlier.

There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 2.

So the complainants are entitled to get reliefs as against the OP 1.

Point Nos. 1 & 2 are accordingly decided on the basis of above views and hence.

O R D E R E D

That CC case No. 2/11 the complaint u/s 12 CP Act brought by the complainant Sri S. Basak is allowed ex-partie as against the OP 1 with costs of Rs. 600/-

That the OP 1 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) only to the complainants for deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 within 45 days from the date of order, if not paid within the prescribed period of time the said amount i.e. Rs.3,000/- + Rs.600/- i.e. Rs.3,600/- shall bear interest @10% p.a. till full payment to the complainants.

The case could not be disposed of within prescribed of time as Ld. Counsels took adjournments several times and for interlocutory petition hearing.

Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

Dictated & corrected

(S.K. Ghosh)

President-in-Charge

I concur

(Swapna Saha)

Member

-x-