Sri.K. Gopalan: President<br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs 51,000/- together with Rs 1000/- as cost.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows. The complainants have gone to the Holy Mecca to perform holy hajj in the last year through the opposite party from Calicut Airport. The amount fixed by the opposite party for first category is Rs 59,204/- per each pilgrimage. The complainants paid Rs 1,77,612 to the opposite party. The complainants booked first category and the said amount is for first category. When the complainants reached at Airport, the opposite party compelled to sign an undertaking stating that if the accommodation facilities not available in and around the Holy Mecca Mukkarramah town complainants will not prefer any punitive claim /damage against the Hajj Committee of India of Govt. of India. The complainants were accommodated outside the Mecca alleging the above ground but the complainants have no complaint against the opposite party. On the said ground only since it was agreed by the complainants before departure to the Holy Mecca. The opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount paid by the complainants since the opposite party provided accommodation out side the Mecca and the facilities provided is only 111 B category accommodation. Each pilgrims paid SR 5990/- for getting first category. But accommodation for getting 111 B category is SR 4640. Hence the opposite party is liable to refund SR of 1350/-equivalent to Indian Rupees 17,000/- each to the complainant. The opposite party refunded an amount of Rs 4380/- to each pilgrim as the difference of foreign exchange amount and difference of accommodation rental. But the complainant paid sum of Rs 59,204/- to opposite party. Opposite party refunded the said amount to all pilgrims even those pilgrims who paid sum of Rs 46,767 for B category accommodation. But the complainant paid sum of Rs 17,000/- each extra to the opposite party for getting A category accommodation and the complainants have got B category accommodation only in the out side the Mecca town. Hence the opposite party is liable to refund the difference of A category Rs 17000/- each to the complainants ie; altogether Rs 51,000/-. Hence this complaint for directing the opposite party to pay Rs 51000/- being the return of excess amount paid together with a cost of Rs 1000/-.<br /> After notice from the Forum, the opposite party made appearance and filed version. But opposite party became absent thereafter and subsequently declared exparte.<br /> The contentions raised in the version in brief are as follows: It is true that the complainants paid Rs 1,77,612/- for booking first category. They were selected against waiting list process at the last moment for departure of Hajj 2006. In that year Consulate General of India, Feddh suggested that all those who are getting confirmation from waiting list and travel under Govt. quota should be given category 111 B as sufficient accommodation was not available in category 1. The applicant was selected on waiting list and thus automatically booked in the category 111 B. But unfortunately category 111 B accommodation were also not provided due to non-availability of units. The differential amount in between category 1 and category 111 B was coming Rs 12,437 per pilgrim and total amount of Rs 37,311/- has already been refunded to M. Haris vide cheque no.063191 dated 27.5.2008 for Rs 37,311/- drawn on State Bank of India Mumbai Main Branch. Since the category 111 B were also not provided right action taken and refunded the differential amount. A Bank Draft bearing No.611875 dated 15.5.2006 for Rs 13,146/- issued in favour of Mr. Haris being the main applicant of the cover and forward to him by registered post. Hence, no refund is due in their case.<br /> Whether there is territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint is the first question to be decided The complaint can only be entertained if th opposite party resides or carry on business within the local limits of the District Forum or the cause of action, wholly or in part arises in territorial limits of this Forum. It can be seen that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainants contention is that they have taken D.D. from Kannur. Even if it has been taken for granted that does not mean cause of action arose from the place of taking D.D. But if the money is paid or payable within the jurisdiction of this Forum things would have been different. Complainant also contended that Hajj classes were conductd at Kannur. First of all there is no evidence to show that such classes were conducted. Secondly it is not stated who conducted the classes . Thirdly the purpose for which such classes were conducted were not also explained so as to establish its relation with their going to the Holy Mecca. Another contention of the complainant is that registered notice issued from Kannur. Registered notice can be issued from any place. It cannot be said that the cause of action arose at a place from where the registered notice is issued. Complainants contention that the cause of action arose from Kannur cannot be accepted. Hence we are of opinion that there is no territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action does not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.<br /> However in the light of available evidence on records, the merit of the case also can be looked into. Admittedly the complainants were booked first category accommodation by paying Rs 59,204/-for each pilgrimage . The complainants averred that the opposite party has undertaken to provide Ist category accommodation in and around Mecca but provided 111 B category accommodation outside the Mecca. Opposite party admits this fact. Complainants demands the refund of exces amount Rs 17,000/- each. Opposite party contended that the differential amount in between category 1 and 111 B was Rs 12,437/- per pilgrim and a total amount of Rs 37,311 is refunded. This fact has not been denied by the complainant. Ext. A1 proves that an amount of Rs 37,311 has been refunded by a crossed cheque No.063191 dated 27.5.2008 for Rs 37,311 drawn on State Bank of India, Mumbai Main Branch. This fact was not denied by complainant. Details of amount refundable also given the net excess refundable amount as Rs 12,437/- x 3 = Rs 37,311/-. Opposite party has contended that on 15.5.2006 a Bank Draft bearing No.611875 dated 15.5.2006 for Rs 13,146/- issued in favour of Mr. Haris, the main applicant. This was also not denied by the complainant. Thus in the light of Bank Draft dated 15.5.2006 for Rs 13,146 /- and cheque dated 27.5.2008 for Rs 37,311/- drawn on State Bank of India , Mumbai Main Branch the contention of opposite party that the refund of whole applicable amount is refunded, can be believed. Hence we are of opinion that this case is liable to be dismissed. Order passed accordingly.<br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER sd/-MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibit for the complainant<br /> A1. Photo copy of the letter dt. 29.5.08 sent by the opposite party<br /> A2.Letter dt. 14.10.05 sent by the Haj Committee , Kozhikod<br /> Exhibit for the opposite party-Nil<br /> Witness examined on either side-Nil.<br /> Forwarded/by order <br /> <br />