Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/127/2015

PARVEENSOI - Complainant(s)

Versus

A-1 MARKETING EXPRESS P. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/127/2015
 
1. PARVEENSOI
F-406, AMRAPALI ZODIAC SECTOR-100120. NOIDA GUATAM BUDH NAGAR U.P.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. A-1 MARKETING EXPRESS P. LTD
C-52, F.F.C., JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI-55.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

ORDER

PER V. K. DABAS, MEMBER

In breif, the case of the complainant is that the representative of
the OP contacted him in the month of May 2014 and depicted the
attractive tour plan of the company and hence the complainant availed
of the membership plan on payment of a sum of Rs. 28090/- from the OP.
He was allotted membership ID -INH 2544 -IMH 2546 by the OP company
and on further demand of the the complainant paid utility charges of
Rs 6000/-.  The complainant decided to avail of the facility of the OP
tour plan for goa in the month of November 2014 with his family
members and asked the OP to make necessary arrangements for hotel
booking etc.     It is alleged that on reaching the hotel booked in
Goa by the OP, the complainant was shocked to see the arrangements;
they were provided with ordinary rooms with no facility of mess etc.
On making several complaints, the OP asked the complainant and his
family members to walk for 500 mtrs daily to another hotel for lunch,
dinner and even breakfast.  Further it is alleged by the complainant
that he was told that OP can arrange some good rooms for them on
payment of extra charges,. On this assurance they had shifted to
another hospital. However, the complainant family members were
detained and told that they can leave the hotel after the payment of
extra charges of Rs. 21,000/-. Hence, the complainant’s family could
leave the hotel only after paying the said amount.  It is further
alleged by the complainant that he was compelled to travel to Goa by
flight to save the members of his family from such an uncomfortable,
humiliating and unsafe situation and had to spend an extra amount of
Rs. 13,000/- for this purpose. It is also alleged by the complainant
that after making complaint  to the head office of the OP and rigorous
efforts the OP had returned a sum of Rs. 15,700/- only by cheque .
Hence, the complaint wherein he has sought refund of the membership
and  Rs. 28090/- utility charges Rs. 6000/- for Rs  20,000/- extra
chargers for hotel besides Rs. 13,000/-  for taking a flight to Goa.
He has also sought compensation and also cost of litigation.

The OP was served with  notice but did not appear despite service and
hence was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.



       In the evidence, the complainant has reiterated the contents of
his complaint by way of affidavit.    The complainant has placed on
record, copy of the membership  form dated 14-5-2014.  He has also
placed on record a copy of legal notice dated 12-3-2015 along with its
postal reciept. In a number of cases, courts have held that where
serious allegations are made against a noticee in a notice and the
allegations are  not refuted and the notice is simply ignored, a
presumption may be drawn that the allegations made in the notice are
true. (See Kalu Ram Vs SitaRam 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis
Travels vsSumit Kalra & Another 98(2002) DLT 573 (DB).

   The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn
infavour of the complainant.  The bare perusal of the complaint had
leveled all the allegations against OP2 and not against OP1.
We,therefore, are of the opinion that OP1 is not guilty of any
deficiencyin service, infact OP2 which is accountable to the
allegations leveledby the complainant.  From the unrebutted testimony
of thecomplainant as well as thedocument placed on record, we are
convinced that the story put forth

by the complainant is true.  We hold OP2 guilty of deficiency in

service and direct it as under:-

1.To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 62390/- as refund of the
amount paid by him to the OP

3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,00/- as a cost of litigation.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.