Dtd.18.03.2024                                     A/1089/2023

O R D E R

     BY HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.12.04.2023 passed in CC/421/2021 on the file of 2^nd Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.

3. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that the District Commission lost sight of the factum that the CP Act has been enacted as welfare legislation in order to protect the innocent consumers from the hands of unscrupulous persons and entities. The OP did not allow the Complainant to utilise the service is to be provided as per the vouchers issued which will be valid till Jan 2020. On the contrary, learned counsel for OP/Respondent submits the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint, since the Complainant is not eligible to have the benefit and facility of whatever the kind on 25^th and 31^st December as per the terms & conditions agreed upon at clause therein mentioned under Gift Certificates. It is true, as we found from the impugned order, the District Commission held as per such terms & conditions the Complainant is not entitle to book on those days in order to avail the facility. On the contrary, learned counsel for Appellant/Complainant submits that, there is no signature found on the front sheet, but the signature has been obtained on the backsheet, where no such condition forthcoming and as a matter of fact, no such conditions are forthcoming in the gift certificates/vouchers/ coupons and further nothing prevented the OP/Respondent from intimating the Complainant either through an email or otherwise that on 25^th and 31^st December services are not available under the scheme and not replying or intimating, as a result, Complainant unnecessarily was made to travel to the hotel and faced humiliation and disappointment, has some considerable force, since OP has failed to place any materials on record to show that OP had intimated the Complainant through email or otherwise that on 25^th and 31^st December gift vouchers are not valid to utilise under the scheme. In such circumstances, in our view, the District Commission has to be held committed error in dismissing the complaint instead of perceiving these intercasis of the dispute between the consumer and service provider. In our view, the District Commission could have ordered for refund of Rs.11,000/- instead of dismissing the complaint. Learned counsel for Complainant/Appellant submits that, OP humiliated the Complainant, as she was made to travel to the hotel and face humiliation and disappointment, is entitle for interest on amount and also entitle for an adequate compensation and litigation costs. It has come to the notice of the Commission that, Complainant is a wife of advocate on record and she is also an advocate. In such circumstances, money for them is not matters, as such, we are of the view, direction to refund Rs.11,000/- without awarding of interest, compensation and litigation costs would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the order dtd.12.04.2023 passed in CC/421/2021 by the 2^nd Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban, and as a result, allowed the complaint in part. Consequently directed OP to refund Rs.11,000/- in favour of the Complainant within 45 days or else the amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.

4. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

Lady Member             Judicial Member              President      

*NS*