JUDGMENT O R D E R

                                      (As per Shri. Sanjay Chodankar, President)

By this Judgment and order we shall dispose of the Complaint dated 27/06/2011 filed by the Complainant and which was admitted by this Forum against the Opposite Party herein under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

1. The Complainant is a senior citizen and residing at the address given in the cause title. The Opposite Party is a travel agent function under the name Airsonic Holidays Pvt. Ltd. having its office at F-4, Landscape, Excelsion, 1^st Floor, Campal, Panaji Goa.

2. The Complainant came across an advertisement of the Opposite Party in the local English daily, about the pilgrimage, tours organized by the Opposite Party, to holy lands.

3. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party and made initial payment of Rs.40,000/- towards the said tour for him and his wife. The total cost of the tour is Rs. 70,000/- per person.

4. The tour was to start on 10/10/2010, but the tour dates was received by the Opposite Party from 06/10/2010 to 16/10/2010.

5. Prior to the tour, the Opposite Party had called all the tour members meetings at their office for explanations and clarification of the said tour to holy land.

6. The points that arise for consideration are :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. To what relief the Complainant is entitle to?

7. The Complainant‘s had filed the affidavits-in-evidence and relied on the documents mentioned above inter-alia reiterating their stands taken in the Complaints and written arguments. The matter was also orally argued by the learned advocate V. Rodrigues for the Complainant’s and Adv. D. Gaonkar for Opposite Party.

8. The Opposite Party filed the written version raising its preliminary objections to the Complaint filed by the Complainant’s.

9. The Complainant’s submitted that, the Complainant’s had made full payments towards the said tour. The tour date was revised by the Opposite Party without intimation.

10. The tour guide Ms. Zenobia Menezes not co-operated with the Complainant’s during the said tour and she had done her own things at the tour.

11. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant’s were informed about the revised dates of the tour and the Complainant’s had travelled on the said revised dates.

12. The Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant’s could backed out from the tour, if they are not happy. But in the instant Complaint, the Complainant’s accepted the revised date and travelled.

13. The Opposite Party submitted the Complainant’s had not made the tour guide Ms. Zenobia Menezes as a party, as there is no evidence of any such incidents and hardship faced by the Complainant’s during the tour, and the incident is occurred outside India. Further Opposite Party submitted that Complainant had not made any contract with the Opposite Party.

14. On going through the records, we now proceed to record our findings on the merits. We find that the Complainant’s had accepted the revised date of the tour and joined the tour on the said date.

15. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant’s faced such problems during the tour and Ms. Zenobia Menezes not added as a party .There is no contract/agreement signed by the Complainant’s with the Opposite Party.

16. After minutely considering the Complaint, evidence, documents, written and oral arguments advanced by the Adv. for Complainant’s and Adv. for Opposite Party, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

17. The Opposite Party had not caused any inconvenience , financial loss to the Complainant’s and accordingly we pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed with no order as to the costs.

Pronounced in open court. Proceedings closed.