Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/51/2014

Pemmasani Sudarsanam Naidu, S/o. Late P.Nagabhushanam Naidu, Chartered Accountant - Complainant(s)

Versus

COX & KINGS, represented by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

A.Surendra naidu

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

Filing Date:25.09.2014

Order Date:11.01.2016

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

MONDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.51/2014

 

Between

 

Pemmasani Sudarsanam Naidu,

S/o. late. P.Nagabhusanam Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 45 years,

Chartered Accountant,

Flat No.205, Chenji Plaza,

State Bank of India,

K.T.Road,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         COX & KINGS,

            Represented by its Manager,

            No.20-3-25, Vodaphone Office,

            Sivajyothi Nagar,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         COX & KINGS,

            Rep. by its Swat Manager – AP, 

Sri Rajendra Prasad,

Annam Plaza, MCH 8-2-618,

Road No.11, Banjara Hills,

            Lane Opp. Care Hospital,

            Hyderabad – 500 034.                                                         …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 22.12.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Surendra Naidu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.M.Nagaraju, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant P.Sudarsanam Naidu for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards the amount spent at Niagara Falls and other places in the tour, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant in the tour programme and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the litigation.   

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-   that the complainant and his friends, having attracted by the opposite parties tour features offer, engaged opposite party for abroad tour. The opposite party entrusted a package called “American Splendours with Canada & Bahamas Cruise Summer 2013”, tour period is for 24 days and 23 nights, on payment of Rs.3,60,000/-. Accordingly, opposite parties have given tour package invoice dt:26.12.2012, duly signed by the opposite parties Accounts Department, Tirupati Branch, along with store manager vide booking ID No.434321. The tour package includes 5 days trip to Canada starting at New York.

            3.  Tour programme went on well according to schedule up to 4^th day. On       4^th day evening the authorized guide of opposite party dropped the complainant at Niagara Falls. As per the schedule, opposite parties have to pick him up on 5^th day morning, but for the reasons best known, opposite parties did not turn-up on 4^th day night and 5^th day to 9^th day. Consequently, complainant had to engage shelter at his own by spending huge amount. Complainant could not traced out whereabouts of the opposite party or their agent despite his sincere efforts through phones and other modes.

            4.  At last, the opposite party people came on 10^th day morning, picked-up the complainant to complete the tour. When the complainant questioned the opposite party, represented through their authorized agent, that they could not get visa for Canada, for the defective schedule. The opposite party did not inform the same before the booking date and caused severe mental agony and monitory loss. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Though the opposite parties have collected Rs.3,60,000/- for the entire tour programme including Canada, they could not take the complainant to Canada as per schedule and he was dropped at Niagara Falls during the tour programme and made him to stay their for about 5 days. Hence the complaint.

            5. Opposite parties have filed their written version through its Senior Manager, Accounts, at Tirupati Branch, as their authorized signatory. Opposite party admitted that the complainant along with his friends booked a tour of ‘American Splendor with Free Canada and Bahamas Cruise’ for departure schedule on 9^th May 2013. The tour selected by the complainant was ‘American Splendor including free Bahamas Cruise, Canada Tour for 4 days and Goodies worth USD 450’. Tour cost collected from the complainant, did not contain the cost of these free excursions. No cost is collected for tour of free excursions. In order to complete 24 days and 23 nights tour, the complainant is required to possess two valid visas i.e. one for USA and another for Canada. The opposite party processed complainant visas. American visa was granted whereas Canada visa was rejected for the complainant and his fellow passengers (total 6 in number) in the last week of April 2013, and the same was communicated to the complainant immediately. Thus, the complainant is well aware of rejection of his Canada visa before departure on tour and has to stay at USA along with co-passengers whose Canada visas were rejected. Opposite parties helped the passengers including the complainant to book their accommodation. As per the itinerary, after completing the visit to Niagara Falls, those who got valid visas have departed to Canada and the end point of the said free tour of Canada was Albany.

            6.  The opposite parties inquired the complainant and other passengers whose Canada visas were rejected, in which place they wanted to stay either at Niagara Falls, Albany or at New York, and they informed that, they wanted to stay at Niagara Falls as well as Albany. Accordingly, the opposite parties booked hotel for two nights at Niagara Falls and two nights at Albany, for six passengers including the complainant at the cost of the opposite party. The opposite parties also booked a ticket on a coach from Niagara Falls to Albany, and handed over the vouchers to the complainant, and on the request of the complainant hotel voucher was also forwarded to the complainant to his e-mail ID. It was agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties that they shall share the cost of stay at Niagara. Accordingly, complainant made part payment of the actual cost incurred towards his stay. Though the opposite party has no liability, it shared the cost. Granting or rejecting the visa is at the discretion of Canadian Consulate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per the tour schedule and terms and conditions, the Head Office of opposite party is at Mumbai and the jurisdiction shall vest in the competent Court / Forum / Tribunal in Mumbai only. The complaint is filed for unlawful gain and prays the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

            7.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1, whereas the opposite party filed chief affidavit of Mr.Mohammed Atherulla as R.W.1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 for the complainant and Ex.B1 for the opposite party. Written arguments were filed. Heard the counsel for both parties.

            8.  Now the points for consideration are:-             

            i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            iii)  To what relief?

            9. Point No.(i):- before answering this point, we have to verify the definition for service.

As per Section-2(i)(o) of C.P.Act service means:-                                            

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

 

                Here in this case, the opposite parties offered their service for abroad tour under the package called “American Splendours with Canada & Bahamas Cruise Summer 2013”. For the purpose of this tour programme, the total period is 24 days and 23 nights and opposite party has collected Rs.3,60,000/- from the complainant. The opposite parties have given tour package invoice dt:26.12.2012 under Ex.A3. The opposite parties also gave tour schedule under Ex.A1. As per Ex.A1 tour schedule, the programme from Day.1 to Day.24 was given. As per the schedule, the opposite party has to take the complainant along with other passengers on tour commencing from 09.05.2013. Day.1 to Day.3 programme was fixed at New York in different places, Day.4 was meant for Washington – Niagara Falls, Day.5 also Niagara Falls – Toronto, Day.6 was scheduled to Toronto – Ottawa, Day.7 Ottawa – Montreal, Day.8 was also scheduled to Montreal to Quebec City and other places, Day.9 was Montreal – Saratoga Springs, Day.10 Saratoga Springs – Albany – Orlando, Day.11 Orlando Walt Disney’s Magic Kingdom, Day.12 Orlando – Bahamas Cruise, Day.13 Bahamas Cruise surrounded by the gentle, translucent waters of the Bahamas chain etc., Day.14 Bahamas Cruise for a city now known for its warming sun and balmy breezes, Day.15 Bahamas Cruise, Day.16 Bahamas Cruise – Orlando, Day.17 Orlando – San Francisco, Day.18 San Francisco, Day.19 San Francisco – Las Vegas, Day.20 Las Vegas, Day.21 Las Vegas – San Diego, Day.22 San Diego – Los Angeles, Day.23 Las Angeles and Day.24 Depart Los Angeles. The allegation made by the complainant is that their tour programme was preceded well till 4^th day. On 4^th day evening, he was dropped at Niagara Falls and expected to pick him up on 5^th day morning to other places, but it is specifically alleged that opposite party did not turn-up from Day.5 to Day.9 (5 days), on 10^th day opposite party came to him and pick him along with other 5 passengers to complete the remaining tour programme. When the complainant questioned the opposite parties, as to why he was not taken-up on 5^th morning as scheduled, the opposite party personnel represented that his visa for Canada was rejected for improper tour schedule, as such they could not take him up. The complainant further complaining that because of the indifference attitude of the opposite parties and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, he was forced to stay for 4 days at Niagara Falls and was also forced to spent huge amount for his stay for 5 days. That the opposite party has acted against the tour schedule, therefore, he is making his claim of Rs.2,50,000/- towards amount paid / spent by him at Niagara Falls for 5 days, and also for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is claiming Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to him by the opposite parties. When the opposite parties have accepted the tour programme and collected Rs.3,60,000/- from the complainant admittedly and furnished the tour schedule to the complainant and other passengers, those who intended to visit abroad, it is for the opposite parties to get the visas for the places, they intended to take the tourists including Canada.

                10.  For the above allegations, the contention of the opposite parties is that, they have processed the visas for USA and also for Canada to complete the tour programme, but the visas for USA alone was granted and unfortunately visas for complainant and other 5 passengers were rejected by Canadian Consulate. This was happened well before commencing the tour programme and the same was immediately informed to the complainant and asked the complainant where they wanted to stay either at Niagara, Albany or at New York, then the complainant and other 5 passengers, whose Canada visas were rejected, wanted to stay at Niagara Falls as well as at Albany. Accordingly, opposite party booked hotel for 2 nights at Niagara and 2 nights at Albany at the cost of the opposite parties. Opposite parties also booked a ticket on a coach from Niagara to Albany and handed over the vouchers to the complainant, and at his request a copy of the voucher was forwarded to the complainant to his e-mail ID. It was agreed between the complainant and opposite party that they shall share the cost of stay at Niagara. Accordingly, complainant made part payment of actual cost incurred towards his stay. Though the opposite party is not liable, it shared the cost. Granting or rejecting the visa is at the discretion of Canada Consulate, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. If this version is to be accepted, they ought not to supply the tour programme covering 24 days and 23 nights to the complainant and they ought to have exempted the tour programme for the places to be visited in Canada for 4 days or 5 days, whatever it scheduled, but they did not do so.

                11.  Another contention of the opposite party is that Canada and some other places appended thereto were free tour, as such they have not charged any amount for the said free tour. When the tour itself is mentioned as free tour, they cannot claim any amount for such places. Ex.A2 advertisement of the opposite party, which offers the following American Splendours 15D Rs.2,81,959/-, it follows free of 4 nights Bahamas Cruise + 4 nights Canada with 1 night at Saratoga Springs + free 450 USD worth experiences i.e. Niagara dinner of elements Los Vegas – Double Decker Bus ride San Digo – Hot Air Balloon ride and many more, and another offer is Passionate Europe 14D Rs.1,28,959/- which includes free of 7 nights Mediterranean Cruise which includes visit to Livorno, Genoa, Nice, Barcelona, Tunisia. So, if the Canada tour is exempted from the tour programme, its cost ought to have remitted back to the complainant or reduce from the cost collected. Ex.A2 offers American Splendours 15D Rs.2,81,959/- for 4 nights Bahamas Cruise free, 4 nights Canada with 1 night at Saratoga Springs free and 450 USD worth experiences also free, but the opposite parties have collected Rs.3,60,000/- from the complainant, for what purpose that amount has been collected? So, the contention of the opposite parties is quite contrary to the offers under Ex.A2. When the opposite parties offered some packages alluring the passengers like complainant and others to visit abroad and taken the passengers to some extent and dropped somewhere enroute and left them for 5 days to their fate and picking them after 6^th day i.e. after Day.10 as per actual programme, are contrary to the offers made under Ex.A2, amounts to certainly unfair trade practice. Thus, the opposite parties were found guilty of not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice, for which the opposite parties are liable.

                12.  Now the word deficiency is defined under Section-2(i)(g) of the C.P.Act as follows:-

“deficiency means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

                      

                Thus Section-2(i)(g) specifies that deficiency in service means 1) any fault, imperfection, short coming in any service or 2) inadequacy in the quality and nature in any service or 3) inadequacy in the manner of performance in any service which is required to be maintained a) by or under any law for the time being in force or b) has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract or otherwise. So, the opposite parties are expected to provide service as offered by it under Ex.A2 and Ex.A1, but they are not supposed to drop any passenger enroute and left them at a place without attaining on them for about 5 days, is deficiency in service and also amounts to unfair trade practice.

                13.  Section-2(i)(r) of C.P.Act, specifies what is unfair trade practice:-

           

“the word unfair trade practice means:-        a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely: (i)  practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation - (ii)  falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade; (iii)  - (iv)  - (v)  - (vi)  makes a false misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services; (vii)  - (viii) – (ix) – (x) – etc.

 

            Thus, the nature of the opposite parties in offering the services are false within the scope of Section-2(i)(r) – (i),(ii),(vi), which certainly comes within the scope of unfair trade practice.

            14.  It is Prima Facie appears that the opposite parties have published the offers under Ex.A2 only to promote their schemes by misleading advertisements and made the passengers to suffer enroute.  

            15.  In a decision delivered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Lufthansa German Airlines Vs. Sunil Kothari & Anr. Dt:22.11.2012.  The facts as seen in R.P.No.1737/2012 have been taken for the purposes of the consideration of those revision petitions. The matter arises out of the travel of the complainant from New Delhi to Tusan (USA) for participating in Tusan Fair in February 2005. The journey in both sectors was booked on Lufthansa Flight. Onward journey from New Delhi to Tusan via Munich (Germany) had apparently no problem. But, for the return journey, which was from Tusan to New Delhi via Frankfurt (Germany), the complainant was not allowed to board the flight, on the ground that he did not have transit visa for Germany. He had to undergo considerable additional expenditure and personal inconvenience and could return to Delhi after a delay of two days. In the consumer complaint filed against Royal Classic Tours and Travel Pvt. Ltd (O.P.1) and Lufthansa German Airlines, through its Country Manager, New Delhi (O.P.2), the complainant claimed 1488.44 USD towards cost of the tickets, Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.21,000/- towards costs. The District Forum observed that no documentary evidence is produced by opposite party No.1 in support of its contest, that it has rebooked the passenger from Tusan to New Delhi on the next day i.e. 9.2.2005, and allowed the complaint and awarded air fare from Tusan to New Delhi via Frankfurt and also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. The Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal and the revision petition also dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission holding that there are no merits in the R.P filed by the opposite parties.

            16.  In the case on hand also, having accepted the tour programme and collected Rs.3,60,000/- from the complainant, they are not supposed to leave the passenger at Niagara on 4^th day and left him there itself for 5 days without attending on him for his necessities and without taking him to other places as scheduled under Ex.A1, stating that his visa was rejected by Canada Consulate. The facts of the above decision are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

            17.  In another decision delivered by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.366/2005 – M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Mr.Joseph A.Fernanes & Anr. their Lordships observed that it is pertains to a tour from Bangalore to Singapore – Malaysia, undertaken by a couple in 2003. Couple allegation was that the travel agency i.e Cox & Kings Pvt. Ltd. misleads them about the total number of days of the cruise, while the advertisement described the cruise as 2 nights / 3 days, but the trip was only for 2 nights and 1^1/2 days. The District Forum before which the couple filed a case, ordered the tour operator to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The appeal made by the travel agency was dismissed by the Karnataka State Commission, which however reduced the compensation to Rs.25,000/-. In its revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, the travel agency concedes that the cruise lasts only for 2 nights and 1^1/2 days. He, however, argued that they had at no time told the couple that the cruise would be for 2 days and 3 nights. Infact, they were clearly told that, it was only for 2 nights 1^1/2 days. However, the travel agency admitted that the star cruise services were called “2 nights / 3 days cruise”. It was argued that this nomenclature was used by the Star Cruise Company and was in vogue throughout. After considering all the facts of the case, the Hon’ble National Commission held that there was a deliberate attempt misleading the consumers in the advertisement that the cruise for 2 nights and 3 days. The departure of the cruise was deliberately timed at 11.59 p.m. i.e. one minute short of midnight and counted that one minute as one full day. This is nothing short of outright cheating by the cruise company and the travel agency. The Hon’ble National Commission further held that the practice followed by them Falls squarely under the definition of unfair trade practice in the C.P.Act 1986. The Apex Consumer Court asked the travel agency to stop issuing such advertisements. The Hon’ble National Commission further observed that “in our view, this practice by the petitioner is not only a case of misrepresentation through misleading advertisement but also an unfair trade practice in the eyes of Consumer Protection Act”.

            18.  In the case on hand also, opposite party Cox & Kings advertised a package called “American Splendours with Canada & Bahamas Cruise Summer 2013”, and allured the passengers, those who wants to visit abroad on tour offered by the opposite parties, it specifies the tour programme for 24 days and 23 nights, but on the completion of 4^th day of their tour schedule as given under Ex.A1, some of the passengers i.e. complainant herein and 5 others were left at Niagara and the opposite parties did not turn-up for 5 days and after the 10^th day only they could come and take the passengers. The opposite parties further contention that their visas for Canada was rejected and it was communicated to the complainant and other 5 passengers, but a scrap of paper is not filed in this Forum to support their case, that they have communicated the complainant and other 5 passengers, that their visas for Canada were rejected. Without obtaining visas for Canada, how the opposite parties could take the complainant and 5 other passengers on tour with same cost for the entire tour programme including Canada? They have not offered any explanation satisfactory to answer this point. Thus, in our opinion the opposite parties Cox & Kings Pvt. Ltd. committed not only unfair trade practice, misleading advertisements, misrepresentation and also deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is answered.

            19.  Point No.(ii):- to answer this point, we have to state that admittedly the complainant is one of the travelers in the package offered by the opposite parties in the name and style of  “American Splendours with Canada & Bahamas Cruise Summer 2013”. As per the tour schedule 24 days and 23 nights are to be spent in the tour programme, out of which the complainant and 5 other passengers were left at Niagara and the opposite parties did not attend on their needs, and they were not taken to continue the tour programme from 5^th to 9^th day along with other passengers. Therefore, necessarily the complainant is forced to spend some amount for his stay or other needs at Niagara Falls for 5 days. As per Ex.B1, they have booked a hotel on     12^th May 2013 and 14^th May 2013 for 2 nights and 3 nights respectively. It was not specified as to how much amount they have paid. It was for 12^th and 14^th i.e. only       2 days. 12.05.2013 comes on 4^th day of their schedule and 14.05.2013 comes on       6^th day of their schedule, then what about remaining 5^th day, 7^th to 9^th days and the relevant nights, the opposite parties did not speak about those days. Therefore, the documents itself clearly establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties also failed to file any document to show that their Canada visas were rejected for the complainant and other 5 passengers and also no document is filed to show that rejection of visa for the complainant was communicated to the complainant. There is also no scrap of paper is filed in support of the opposite parties that whether such rejection was before commencement of the tour programme or subsequent to commencing of tour programme or at any time during the tour programme. Therefore, it appears, they are taking false plea to substantiate their false contest.

20.  Likewise, complainant also failed to file any receipt or voucher or copy of bill or original bill for the 5 days they spent at Niagara Falls, to show that he has paid the necessary amount for his stay at Niagara Falls for 5 days and it was also not properly explained what is the amount incurred for 5 days, simply mentioning that he incurred an a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is not sufficient, as such we are of the opinion that he failed to specify the actual amount incurred by him at Niagara Falls. However, unless he has spent some amount, he is not expected to stay at Niagara Falls without any expenditure, atleast for his food and shelter. Since, the opposite parties have made the complainant to stay at Niagara Falls enroute the tour programme for about 5 days, necessarily he is entitled to some amount for his food and shelter and also the compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

21.  Point No.(iii):- in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties        1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards expenditure for the complainant’s food and shelter for 5 days @ Rs.10,000/- per day from 5^th day to 9^th day (both days inclusive) of the tour. Both the opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and for causing mental agony to the complainant. Opposite parties      1 and 2 also further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of coy of this order, failing which the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-) shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.                                      

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of January, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                 

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Pemmasani Sudarsanam Naidu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

 

RW-1: Mr. Mohammed Atherulla (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	A photo copy of Tour schedule provided by Opposite Parties.
	A photo copy of Cox & Kings advertisement offers.
	A true copy of Tour package invoice. Dt: 26.12.2012 and 26.04.2013.
	Office copy of the notice. Dt: 06.08.2013.
	A true copy of Reply notice issued by the Opposite Parties.                          Dt: 10.09.2013.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Photo copies of Cox & Kings Terms and Conditions.

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-      

                                                                                                               President

           // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.