Sri Kalyan Kumar Ghosh,

son of late Prafulla Kumar Ghosh,

residing at 40/4, Nabin Senapati Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Ghose Special,

having its head office

at 34, Strand Road ( 2^nd floor ),

Room no. 9, Kolkata – 700 001,

represented by its proprietor

Manik  Ghosh.-----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Shri Kalyan Ghosh  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. Ghosh Special, being the tour operator, to return the entire amount of Rs. 30,500/-, to pay  an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, physical harassment along with a litigation cost and other reliefs as  the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant paid an amount of Rs. 30,500/- to the

O.P. for attending one tour programme duly conducted by O.P. The said  programme was scheduled for Kumbhomela along with North India Tour supposed to be held on and from 23-02-2013. Being allured by the advertisement published by O.P., complainant went to the office of the O.P. where he met one Sri Manik Ghosh, claiming to be the proprietor of O.P. On  being assured by him, complainant paid Rs. 30,500/- to avail the said tour with his wife on 02-02-2013 vide money receipt no. 2347 dated 02-02-2013. Thereafter on 19-02-2013 complainant again went to the office of O.P. to enquire about the train ticket, time table etc. where he met one, Abhishek Ghosh,  son of Manik Ghosh, who assured him that ticket will be given at the platform no. 9, Howrah Station on the scheduled date of journey i.e.,  on 23-02-2013 for the scheduled train named, Bombay Mail via Allahabad for which scheduled departure is 10 p.m. And the tickets will be handed over at 9 p.m. Accordingly, on 23-02-2013, complainant reached Howrah Station, platform no. 9 with his wife, at 9 p.m. and met both Manik Ghosh and Abhishek Ghosh to take their tickets. But they did not give tickets and on going through the reservation chart, complainant did not find his and his wife’s names in the reservation chart of Bombay Mail via Allahabad , train no. 12321 although all these prior information were endorsed by O.P. on the reverse side of the money receipt no. 2347 dated 02-02-2013. Even complainant was asked by O.P. to board at coach no. S 10 of the said train. But when complainant asked the concerned T.T. whether he should board at the train, the T.T. advised him not to board without valid reservation ticket.  When he told the said Manik Ghosh, proprietor of O.P., that he was not going to travel by that train, Manik Ghosh said that their entire amount of Rs. 30,500/- is going to  be forfeited and no return would be made to the complainant. Being helpless, complainant and his wife returned home. And on 25-02-2013, he wrote a letter to O.P. to return his above mentioned amount which was received  by O.P. but O.P. did not give any reply vide Annexure letter dated 25-02-2013. Again on 03-04-2013, he sent  another letter with the same request, which was  duly received but no reply was given  by O.P. Complainant and his wife had life-long  desire to go to Kumbhomela which o.p  destroyed and damaged by the gross negligence. Finding no other alternative and being aggrieved by the non action of the O.P., alleging deficiencies in service, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.  

3.                  Notice was served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly,

case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            O.p., in its written

version, has denied and disputed all material facts. By way of amending the train number and name, O.P. has taken a specific plea that complainant was supposed to travel by the train named Vibhuti Express, being train no. 12333 and not by Bombay Mail via Allahabad, being train no. 12321 original ticket was also produced by O.P. From the face of the said ticket, it is appeared that the said ticket was purchased on 22.02.2013 at 10:04 a.m. But on 19-02-2013, when complainant went to the office of the O.P. to collect ticket, he was not only told by O.P., even O.P. mentioned al details about the train on the back side of the money receipt wherefrom it appears that they were supposed to travel by Bombay Mail via Allehabad Express being train no. 12321 scheduled to depart by 10 p.m. And Vibhuti Express  train no. 12333 was supposed to leave Howrah Station by 8 p.m. And para 6 of the written version of the O.P. is full of inconsistencies which is nothing but unfair trade practice. Even for argument sake, it may be accepted that the train name and timing may be altered. But such alteration should have been informed by the O.P., O.P. has taken money, and it is entirely the duty of the O.P. to ensure that the new train name and timing have been brought to the knowledge of the travelers in true sense. A programme chart which was already finalized by O.P. earlier on 19-02-2013, O.P. unilaterally cannot change it without proper intimation. The complainant, a senior citizen, and his wife were very eager and keen to see Kumbhameal, an auspicious event for any Hindu. O.P. did not show any care for that. For a tour operator, consumer satisfaction is of utmost importance. O.P. should have kept in mind that both, the complainant and his wife were ageing. It is not sure whether they would remain physically fit to attend the next Kumbhomela, O.P.’s careless attitude caused emotional loss to the complainant and his wife. O.P. should have been more careful about their duty. They did not even care to reply the letters dated 24-02-2013 & 03-04-2013 sent by the complainant which is nothing but the gross negligence and deficiency in providing service towards the complainant which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly, the case succeeds against O.P. with cost.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  160 of 2013 ( HDF 160 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to refund the entire amount of  Rs/ 30,500/- to the complainant within one month from this order.

      That the complainant do get an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.

      That the O.P. is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 37,500/- to the complainant within in one month from this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.          

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah