Consumer Council of India, a voluntary consumer organization registered under the A.P. (Telengana areas) Public Societies Registration Act, filed a complaint on behalf of the 13 doctors who had traveled to Singapore to attend a conference.  The tickets, etc. had been arranged by Mercury Travels Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein.  Complaint was filed with an allegation that the consumers who had traveled, had not been provided the services for which the payment had already been received by the appellant.  The complaint was allowed by the State Commission and the appellant was directed to pay a sum o fRs.1,60,348/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs, etc.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, Mercury Travels India Ltd. filed F.A. No.100/01 and R.P.871/2001, which were disposed of by a common order dated 25.9.2003.  The appeal as well as the Revision Petition were ordered to be dismissed along with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

          Mercury Travels India Ltd. accepted the decision and deposited the amount.  Appellant moved an application with the following prayer:

“That the appellant/petitioner wants to comply with the orders passed by this Hon’ble Commission; and intends to pay the amount to the complainants.  However, the amount awarded in the impugned order(s) is already lying deposited with the Registrar of this Hon’ble Commission, as stated here in above.”

          Said application came up for hearing before the Presiding Member of the Bench, who disposed of the same by order dated 20.2.2004, which reads as under :

“Heard.  It is prayed that the entire amount deposited should be ordered to be paid to one of the Appellants, Shri M.L. Rao, Director of the Consumer Council of India.  Appeal was dismissed and in ordinary course, the amount could be paid to the Appellant if the order does not specifically states so.  However, there is not much dispute on the point of payment to the claimants, if it is paid towards satisfaction of the claims of all the claimants.  Accordingly, prayer to pay the entire amount to Shri M.L. Rao, Director alone cannot be accepted.  However, seeing that the amount is lying deposited here, it would be appropriate that the cost of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to the Consumer Council of India for persuing this matter on behalf of the consumers/complainants.  As regards remaining amount deposited including interest accrued thereon in the Appeal No.100 of 2001, it should be disbursed in accordance with the judgment of the State Commission to the 13 Doctors   (S. No. 1,2,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 & 15).  Dr. Saraswati Ghosh, sl. No. 3 has filed separate case as such she is not entitled to claim any amount deposited in this appeal. Similarly, Dr. M. Venkata Reddy, sl. No. 8 is also not entitled. 

However, if the aforesaid thirteen Doctors want to donate any portion of the amount received by them to the Council, it would be entirely their decision to pay the same to the Council.  In order to facilitate the disbursement, on authorization by way of a Special Power of Attorney to receive the cheque on behalf of these thirteen Doctors either in favour of one of these Doctors or in favour of Mr. M.L. Rao, authorized person may receive the cheques in the name of the respondent/complainants.  The claim of the complaints will stand satisfied to the extent of amount deposited and paid to them in the said First Appeal.  The application stand disposed of. 

Since the amount has been ordered to be paid in satisfaction of the claim of the claimants in this appeal, Ld. Counsel of the Appellant, Mercury Travels, submits that he does not want to press his application for issuing proper direction for nothing would survive and accordingly the matter need not be listed on 25^th February, 2004 or any subsequent date.  Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

          Thereafter, office put up the following report before the Bench for its consideration :

“The aforementioned Appeal was listed before Court No. 1 on 23.1.2008 for final hearing.  The Hon’ble Bench has referred the matter to the undersigned.  Hence, FA No. 100 of 2001 was taken on board.  The Hon’ble Commission vide Order dated 24.08.2007 directed that notice be issued to both the parties alongwith Office Report and both the parties were directed to move an appropriate application.  Pursuant to the same, notices were sent to both the parties but none appeared from both the parties. 

The Registry has submitted an Office Report in the matter stating therein that as per the directions given by the Hon’ble Commission on 29.07.04, 14 Demand Drafts were obtained, out of which one for Rs. 10,000/- meant for Consumer Council of India, Hyderabad and 13 for equal amount by terminating FDR, out of these 12 have already been released but one of the recipients Dr. G.V. Prabhakar Rao had expired. The Respondents were directed to file the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. G.V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Registry is directed to issue fresh notice to Consumer Council of India directing to file an application for effecting substituted service on the legal heirs of Dr. G.V. Parbhakar Rao. 

The case may be listed for further directions on 25.03.2008.” 

          The matter was put up before the Bench on 5.3.2004 and the following order was passed :

“Having perused the contents of the application, amount of Rs.4,85,995/- is allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant.  Application stands disposed of.”

          Instead of saying that the amount be paid to the respondents, the Bench ordered that the amount be withdrawn by the appellant, i.e., Mercury Travels India Ltd.  In the meantime, Dr.G.V. Prabhakar Rao, one of the consumer, died and the office submitted an office report before the Bench for impleading the LRs of the deceased Dr.G.V. Prabhakar Rao.  The Bench hearing the case ordered issuance of Notices to the parties.  Notices were issued to the parties on 19.10.2009 for today’s date.  None has appeared.

          Having considered the matter, as already observed that the amount be disbursed to the consumers as per order of this Commission dated 20.2.2004 reproduced above.  The order dated 5.3.2004 directing that the amount be paid to the appellant is recalled as the same was a mistake. 

          Misc. Application stands disposed of in above terms.

          LRs of Late Dr.G.V. Prabhakar Rao would be at liberty to approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief.