SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The brief facts, giving rise to the complaint; are that the OP-1, Biplab Mondal, Chairman and Managing Director, Dishari Holidays Limited runs business of travelling and packing tours. The complainant along with her family members intended to travel Andaman through OP-1 and the OP-2 being the authorized agent of OP-1 collected two cheque of Rs. 30,000/- each on 03.12.2016 and 17.12.2016 respectively.  The total cost of the package tour was Rs. 79,500/-. The OP-1 issued provisional bookings. The OP-1 encashed  both the cheques. That on 03.11.2017 the OP-2 informed the complainant that the tour has been cancelled. Complainant lodged a GD Entry against the OPs to Shakespeare Sarani P.S. and also issued a letter dated 25.04.2018 to the OP-1 requesting him to refund the advanced amount of Rs. 60,000/-. In spite of letter dated 25.04.2018.  The OPs remained silent and did not refund the deposited amount. The OPs are deficient in service and the attitude of the OPs is tantamount to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint.

In spite of service of notices the OPs did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.

.

Points for Determination

1. Have the OPs deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
2. Have the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Points No. 1 to 3 :

            All the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

            Complainant to establish her case has produced photocopies of tour programme, provisional bookings receipt, a letter dated 25.04.2018, copy of GD Entry dated 08.03.2018, photocopy of S.B. Account Number 30990680017, and postal registration receipts. On perusal of those documents, we find that the complainant booked a tour for Andaman at a package of Rs. 79,500/- for herself and her husband and daughter with the OP-1. Tour was scheduled to be commenced on 26.02.2017 and the period of tour was 5 night – 6 days. The complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- vide two cheques bearing no. 250483 and 250486 dated 03.12.2016 and 17.12.2017 drawn on SBI, Hatiara Branch and the OP-1 encashed both the cheques out of Rs. 79,500/-. That on 03.11.2017 the OP-2 being authorised  agent of OP-1 informed the complainant that tour has been cancelled by OP-1. Complainant requested the OP-1 vide letter dated 25.04.2018 to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 60,000/- but such letter was unattended.

            The OP-1 has been unable to conduct the tour the reason best known to them.
We also find that the OP-1 appointed agent to collect the money for tours at different places like Andaman, Thailand etc. Ultimately, the OP-1 has not been availed to conduct the tour. Complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- to the OP-1 through OP-2 out of total tour cost of  Rs. 79,500/- but she including her family members unable to enjoy the tour in Andaman. We find that the complainant faced first harassment for being unable to go to Andaman solely for the fault of OP-1 and secondly, she also moved from pillar to post to get back the money including the Police Administration. Therefore, the OP-1 has been deficient in rendering services to the complainant and indulged in unfair trade practice. We do not find any reason why the OP-1 would collect money from the customers by appointing agent and hold the money as per his own discretion. Accordingly, we hold that the OP-1 demonstrated a gesture of deficiency in service. The OP-1 has also caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant. The OP-2 being an agent of OP-1 collected cheques from the complainant and handover those cheques to the OP-1 who encashed both the cheques in his own account. The OP-2 never misappropriated the amount of the complainant. He only collected the cheques from the complainant as per direction of the OP-1. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2.

            The Complainant corroborates her case by adducing evidence on affidavit as well as by producing documents. There is no evidence on the part of the OP-1 to rebut the evidence of complainant. The evidence of the complaint remains unchallenged. In absence of any contrary materials as well as documents on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been availed to prove her case. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for against OP-1. All the points under determination answered in the affirmative.

In the result, the case succeeds in part.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex parte against OP-1 in part with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and the case is dismissed ex parte against the OP-2 without any cost.

The OP-1 is directed to refund Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand) only to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost.

OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for causing harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant within the stipulated period.

Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution, if the OP-1 transgresses to comply the order.