Consumer Complaint No.165 of 2015

Date of filing: 05.8.2015                                                              Date of disposal: 13.04.2016

Complainant:               Indrajit Das, S/o. Sri Taraprasanna Das, resident of Das Bhavan, Ward No. 5, Huchukpara, Purulia, Pin – 723 101.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:            The Proprietor,  Burdwan Tour & Travels, having its Office at Sadar Ghat Road, Vivekananda College More, PO: Sripally, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.        

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

                        Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate,Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  None.

J U D G E M E N T

This is a consumer complaint u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an award of Rs. 32,500=00 paid in advance for a tour to Kashmir, Rs. 20,000=00 for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The case in brief is that:-

The complainant paid Rs. 32,500=00 in advance to the OP for a tour to Kashmir along with his wife on 11.03.2014 for food, lodging and fare for both of them for which the OP issued a receipt being no. 1060 dated 11.03.2014.

The date of tour was fixed on 19.5.2014. The OP assured to handover the tickets before 19.5.2014 but the OP did not do so and even the OP did not intimate regarding place and time of the journey when it would start. After 19.5.2014, the complainant communicated with the OP and requested to return the money paid in advance. But the OP did not return the money.

In the month of September, the OP gave an option to adjust the money already paid for the tour to Kashmir i.e. Rs. 32,500=00 with a tour to Sikkim. The complainant agreed to the opportunity given to him. The tour to Sikkim was scheduled on 30.9.2014. During the time of journey, the OP issued an A/c. payee cheque bearing no. 133501 drawn on IDBI Bank of Rs. 32.500=00, the consideration money paid by the complainant to the OP for Kashmir tour. But the OP asked Rs. 18,000=00 from the complainant for the Sikkim tour. On good faith, the complainant gave Rs. 18,000=00 to the OP for which the OP did not issue any receipt.

After returning from Sikkim tour, the complainant submitted the said cheque of Rs. 32,500=00 to Punjab National Bank for clearance. Surprisingly, the cheque was bounced with an endorsement, ‘insufficient balance’. The complainant communicated with the OP for several times informing the fact of bouncing the said cheque. On 07.12.2014 the OP again asked the complainant to submit the cheque again and as such the complainant submitted the cheque on 08.12.2014. Again the cheque was bounced on the ground of ‘insufficient balance’. Till the date of filing this case, the OP did not return back the said amount of Rs. 32,500=00. Hence, the case arose.

Notice was duly served several occasions upon the OP but it was returned with the endorsement ‘not known’. Even after the paper publication, the OP did not turn up. Hence the case was heard ex parte.

Decision with reasons:-

The complainant paid Rs. 32,500=00 for the Kashmir tour. But on the scheduled date, the tour was cancelled without any information to the complainant. Hence it is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

Secondly, inspite of several requests, the OP did not return the money. Hence, it is an unfair trade practice.

Thirdly, the OP wanted to adjust the money paid for the Kashmir tour, i.e. Rs. 32,500=00 with the Sikkim tour and the complainant agreed upon in good faith. But, the happenings actually ran quite reversely. The OP asked for Rs. 18,000=00 for Sikkim tour and issued a cheque of Rs. 32,500=00 for reimbursement of the money paid for Kashmir tour. But the cheque of Rs. 32,500=00 was unfortunately bounced by the Bank for ‘insufficient balance’. That is clearly evident that the OP had a malafide intention to turn the allegation of the complainant in some other direction. This case of bouncing back by the Bank happened again on the same ground by ‘insufficient balance’.

Thus the complaint succeeds ex parte.

As the complainant did not yet get back the money paid for Kashmir tour, so the OP is liable to pay back Rs. 32,500=00 to the complainant.

As the complainant has approached for Rs. 32,500=00 before the OP several times for more than one year, the complainant has faced mental pain. So the OP is liable to pay compensation for mental pain and harassment.

As the complainant has compelled to come before this Forum, he is entitled to get litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP and the complainant does get an award directing the OP to pay back Rs. 32,500=00, to pay Rs. 20,000=00 for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the OP will be liable to pay interest @9% on the decreetal amount for default period. The complainant is at liberty to execute his case as per provisions of the Act if the necessary compliance is not made.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer protection Regulations, 2005.

                   (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                  President      

                                                                                                          DCDRF, Burdwan

                    (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                            Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Silpi Majumder)                        (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                             Member                                             Member

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                            DCDRF, Burdwan