JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that op is carrying on business of Travel Agency under the name and style of M/s Safari Point from the address mentioned in the Cause Title with the jurisdiction of this Forum and in course of such business, op used to make advertisement in different newspapers for under taking package tour to different pilgrimage and different cities in India for sightseeing against payment of consideration.  Though on 20.10.2013 op published an advertisement in the Anandabazar Patrika with the regard to the package tour during December-2013, January-2014 and February-2014 for visiting Kashmir at Rs. 8,500/- including Baishyno Devi at Rs. 9,500/- Vizag-Araku at Rs. 6,000/- including Hyderabad at Rs. 7,500/- Bombay and Goa at Rs. 11,000/- Brindaban at Rs. 9,000/- Gujarat at Rs. 8,500/- Rajasthan at Rs. 10,000/- including all Rs. 13,500/- South/Kerala/Middle India Rs. 12,500/- Puru Rs. 3,900/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Andaman Rs. 7,000/- excluding Air and sea fare.

          Complainant being allured by the said advertisement got interested to avail of the package tour to visit Andaman during the period from 22.12.2013 to 28.12.2013 and pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the representative of the op on 22.10.2013 against receipt No. 106 by submitting a cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Bakultala Branch, being cheque No. 518352 dated 22.10.2013 for two adult persons, namely the complainant and his wife.  That on 25.10.2013 op duly encashed the said cheque and appropriated the same on account of complainant for the said tour at Andaman.

          Thereafter complainant contacted over phone to the office of op for enquiry regarding the said package tour and the said tour was to be undertaken in a group of 25 adults.  Subsequently op used to misbehave with the complainant and in consequence complainant demanded to return the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- only paid against the said package tour.  But they reluctantly issued a post dated cheque on Bank of India, Mission Row Branch, Kolkata being cheque No. 000078 dated 31.03.2014 and further directed to the complainant not to visit the office of the op any longer since the said Andaman tour has been cancelled and further threatened the complainant to face dire consequences in that event and complainant would visit the office of the op. 

          But in the meantime op filed a suit for declaration and injunction being Title Suit No. 1607/2013 against complainant and 12 other persons in the City Civil Court at Kolkata for a declaration that ops have no manner of right to disturb the day to day affair as well as carrying on business by M/s Safari Point etc.  Anyhow the op has not returned the said amount and cause of action of this case arose on 22.10.2013 and same is continued and complainant has filed this case for redressal and also for compensation.

          On the other hand op no.2 Jayanta Banerjee by filing written statement submitted that present complaint is not maintainable against op no.2 and the op no.2 is not responsible for the mischief if any done by Safari Point or its proprietor.  Op no.2 has no knowledge about making of any payment whatsoever and op no.2 never contacted with the complainant and op no.2 has no knowledge in respect of that fact as alleged and he is nowhere connected with the said business and the complaint is barred by limitation and only to confuse the Forum the complainant has made this op no.2 as party falsely and prayed for dismissal of this case.

But notice was served upon to op no.1 and did not turn up for which the case against him heard exparte.

                                              Decision with reasons

On through study of the complaint and written version and also considering the documents as produced by the complainant, it is clear that Safari Point made the advertisement on 20.08.2013 in Anandabazar Patrika for conducting a package tour and complainant was very much interested to avail of that package tour and went to the ops’s office and paid Rs. 30,000/- on 22.10.2013 and money receipt was issued by the Safari Point authority mentioning their contact mobile number on 22.10.2013 and it was paid by a cheque bearing No. 518352 dated 22.10.2013.  But subsequently it is undisputed fact that the said Andaman tour was cancelled by the op authority when the complainant prayed for refund of amount from Dilip Banerjee Prop. of the business of Safari Point issued a cheaue of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant on 31.03.2014 but that was dishonoured.

So it is clear that op adopted unfair trade practice and he realized huge money from different customers by giving such advertisement that Andaman tour shall be conducted by him and with hope many customers like complainant paid money and op received it but ultimately that was cancelled and thereafter some cheques were issued in support of their payment but same were all fake cheques.  In view of the fact that there was no all cheques were bounced and from the present complaint it is also clear that when customers at large were deceived and began hunt at his business place, he filed a suit against the customers so that the customers cannot any way disturb at his business place and complainant has submitted a copy of the Title Suit No. 1607/2013 wherefrom it is clear that op no.1 is nothing but an un-merchantable business man and when he realized that customers at large shall have to attack him he filed a Civil Suit for restraining customers and it simply proves that he is a know cheater in the market and customers are hunting after him for realization of money and to save himself from the hands of them such a false suit was filed.  Whatever it may be it is clear that op no.1 no doubt deceived the complainant and he has not refunded Rs. 30,000/- which was received by him or schedule from the complaint for Andaman Tour which was cancelled by the op subsequently and his signing of all cheques also was bounced.  So, it is clear that op no.1 adopted unfair trade practice for which complainant is entitled to get decree against the op no.1.

Now about op no.2, it is to be mentioned that complainant has failed to prove any document against op no.2 that op no.2 is related with the business.  But it is fact that op no.2 is a tenant of the said premises since long.  But at the same time it is found that Dilip Banerjee a travel agency business from the tenanted portion of the op no.2 and op no.2 has admitted that he is the owner of the tenanted portion or premises.  But no doubt there is some nexus in between Dilip Banerjee and op no.2 which is proved from the fact in respect of that premises wherefrom Dilip Banerjee claimed that he has been running such business and moreover from the copy of the complaint and Title Suit No. 1607/2013 that Dilip Banerjee also noted as proprietor in business of travel and tour of Safari Point and running from 122-B, 1^st Floor, Aurobinda Sarani, Kolkata – 700006.  So, it is clear that Dilip Banerjee is running Safari Point business from the tenanted room of the op no.2 that is proved and for which we are concluding that there is nexus in between Dilip Banerjee and Jayanta Banerjee.

Another factor is that op no.2 had disclosed the father-in-laws name of his written version if it would be disclosed, it would be found that Dilip Banerjee is related to the op no.2.  But that has been suppressed.  But whatever it may be it is clear that op no.2 is related with Dilip Banerjee and for his tenanted room for the said Safari Point business which is being run and now only to save Dilip Banerjee from his liability op no.2 is supporting for which he has stated that he is not aware of Dilip Banerjee etc.  in view of the above findings and considering the op no.1’s negligence and deficient manner of service by adopting unfair trade practice against op no.1, complainant is entitled to get a decree and op’s said business is run to the tenanted portion of the op no.2 and op no.2 cannot deny any liability.

But fact remains complainant has failed to prove that op no.2’s liability in respect of the said business of Safari Point in view of the fact in the copy of that Title Suit No. 1607/2013, it is specifically mentioned that Dilip Banerjee is the proprietor of M/s Safari Point.  So, op no.2 is no way related with the said business.

In the result, the complaint succeeds against op no.1 but fails against op no.2.

Hence, it is

                                                      ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte with cost of Rs. 10,000/- against op no.1 and same is dismissed against op no.2 on contest but without any cost.

          Op no.1 is hereby directed to pay and refund a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and also for adopting unfair trade practice and deceive the complainant in such a manner and also for harassing the complainant, op no.1 shall have to pay penal damages as compensation to the complainant of Rs. 30,000/-.

          For adopting unfair trade practice by op no.1 and for deceiving the customers at large in such a fashion and to check such sort of deceitful manner of business and unfair trade practice, op no.1 is imposed punitive damages of Rs. 10,000/- to comply the entire order of this Forum within 15 days from the date of this order failing which penal proceedings u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which he shall have to pay further penalty and fine.