Order-10.
Date-30/05/2018.
AUTHOR. RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
That the complainant No.1 is a retired Army person, the Complainant No.2 holds the post of Reader in the Serampore Girls’ College in the District of Hooghly and the complainant No.3 is a housewife residing under same roof of the address mentioned above.
That the opposite party no. 1 is a Tour and Travel company represented by OP No.2 in the capacity of Chairman and Managing Director.
That the complainants / petitioners were looking for a tour abroad and being allured with Brochure and through website www. Disheri holiday. Com, the Complainants approached the office of opposite party no. 1 in the month of June, 2016, who assured a schedule journey to visit the country, ‘Thailand’ on and from 24th February, 2017 to 28th February, 2017 at the rate of Rs.26, 673/- for each.
That with high hope and trust the complainants jointly and collectively paid Rs.81, 065/- vide cheque No. 027629 for Rs.48, 639/- and cheque no. 027630 for Rs 32426/- both dated 16/11/2016, drawn on Union Bank, Sonarpur Branch and were duly encashed by the Opposite Party. Needless to mention that both the cheques were issued by the complainant no.1 Pulak Ghosh.
That all on a sudden, the OP suo moto cancelled the tour programme and apprised your complainants such cancellation for seeking option whether to take back the money with interest or willing to avail of tour during the period September – December, 2017.
That the complainants were so mentally depressed, they chose to take back the amount paid by them and accordingly the OP issued a cheque of Rs.83, 219.76 on 31/07/2017 in the name of the complainant no. 1 Pulak Ghosh drawn on HDFC Bank, Park Street Branch.
That the complainant no.1 Pulak Ghosh, deposited the said cheque dated 31/07/2017 drawn on HDFC Bank in his banker United Bank of India, Sonarpur Branch on 29/09/2017 but the said cheque was dishonored with remarks ‘Fund insufficient’ vide return memo dated 09/10/2017.
That the complainants immediately visited the office of the OP no.1 soon after the dishonour of the said cheque with demand of money on returning the dishonouredcheque but the OP paid no heed and as such the complainants returned with empty hands.
That there is gross deficiency of service as well as unfair Trade Practice on the part of the OPs and as such the complainants have been put under immense mental sufferings and harassment.
That the scheduled tour programme has been cancelled by the OPs suo moto without reasons and there is no laches on the part of your petitioners/complainants. The OPs have grabbed your complainants’ money in deceitful manner in the name of package tour of Thailand.
The complainant prayed for Rs.83, 220/- with interest of 18 percent per annum, Rs.40, 000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental sufferings and harassment, and Rs.10, 000/- for the litigation cost.
Points for Discussion
- Whether the complainantsare consumers under the OPs;
- Whether the OPsare deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants;
- Whether the complainants deserve relief.
Decision with Reasons
It appears from Internet Track record that the notice of this Forum was delivered to OP-2 on 21/02/18 and the notice to OP-1 returned unserved. The complainants prayed that the service to OP-1 be treated as good service as OP-2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of OP-1 and such prayer of the complainants were accepted.
We have perused the documents filed by the complainants.
In spite of delivery/receipt of notice by the said OP-2, Chairman and Managing Director, Biplab Mandal, he did not bother to attend proceedings by way of filing WV. This is running from the battle field due to lack of arms and weapons. The OPs in deed have no point to controvert the allegations levelled by the complainants. It is the settled principle that the party even after getting the opportunity to advance its points, fails to utilize the same, then the party lies on the faulty side as against the other party. So, the OPs, in particular, the OP-2 are deficient.
The complainants made full payments in total Rs 81065/- in two cheques, well ahead of commencement of tour. So, the complainants are consumers in terms of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
The OPs whimsically cancelled the tour and asked for options of either taking back of the money or to choose next tours. By such conduct, OPs made gesture of deficiency in service putting the complainants into troubles, physical hazards, mental agony and humiliation before the society members. OPs, particularly the OP-2 are strictly deficient in rendering the promised service to the complainants, in terms of section 2(1)(g) read with section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
Such conduct of OPs is unfair too. They received all the money from the complainants and then cancelled the tour when the complainants have nothing to do except looking for the mercy of OPs. Such things have frequently been taking place and this has been the style of unfair trade practice for collecting money from the people at large in the veil of tours & travels.
OPs showed further bad gesture that they (OP-2) issued cheque for Rs 83219.76 on the option of complainants (because the complainants could not rely on OPs’ assurance of further tour) but the said cheque got dishonored due to insufficient fund in OPs’ account. The OPs willingly issued the cheque knowing fully well there shall not be any money to honour the complainants’ payments. This is very unfair as defined under the provision of section 2(1)(r) of the Act.
For all such activities of the OPs, the complainants’ interest and cause were affected. They deserve relief.
In the circumstances of above discussion, we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the complaint be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs and in particular, against OP-2, Biplab Mandal, in terms of section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended;
That OP-2, Biplab Mandal is directed to pay back Rs 83219.76P (calculated by OP-2 as on 31/07/2017) with 8 percent interest from 31/7/2017 till actual payment(for loss of monetary value), Rs 30000/- u/s 14(1)(d) as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs 5000/- as litigation cost, to the complainant no.1, Pulak Ghosh who shall disburse the same proportionately among three complainants, within 30 days from the date of this order;
That OP-2, Biplab Mandal is further directed to pay an amount of Rs 30000/- u/s 14(1)(hb) of the Act, for adopting unfair trade practice, 50 percent of which shall be paid to the complainants(No. 1 who shall disburse it as ordered at para-2 of the order) and 50 percent to be deposited with this Forum,within 30 days from the date of this order;
That on non-compliance of any of above orders by the OP-2, Biplab Mandal within the stipulated time, the complainants shall be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 27 of the Act ibid.
Let copies of the order be handed over to the parties when asked for.
