- Mr. Kalyan Kanti Choudhury,
Ward No.2, Kapathat, P.O. Diamond
Harbour, Dist. 24 Parganas(South),
West Bengal Pin-743331. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Regional Director,
India Tourism, Govt. of India, Ministry of
Tourism, Ground Floor, Embassy Building,
4, Shakespeare Sarani,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71.
- Mr. Subrata Das,
Proprietor, Hindol Tourism, The Chairman &
Akra Ushumpur Battala, (Near Little Star School),
P.O. Agarpara, Kolkata-700109. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 19 Dated 17-06-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that sometimes in the month of Feb.2012, complainant was offered with 8 nights and 9 days tour package under (Splendid Kashmir with LTC) Scheme being promoted by Hindol Tourism at a concessional rate, the complainant was allured by such representation of Hindol Tourism according to the representation made by Hindol Tourism if the complainant avail the services of o.ps., he will get a better service than any other tour services. Since o.p. made a representation that they are conducting a special tour programme for the Central Govt. Employees to visit Jammu & Kashmir. O.p. represented itself that Hindol Tourism is an authorized service provider being approved by the department of tourism, Govt. of India, complainant relying on the representation made by o.p. has paid a sum of Rs.64,000/- to avail the services of Hindol Tourism for a family tour from Kolkata to Jammu & Kashmir via Srinagar.
Complainant was handed over with E-Ticket for air journey on 17.4.12 in which the destination place for out bound was mentioned as journey from New Delhi to Jammu instead of Srinagar. However, the date of out bound journey was reflected as 2.7.12 whereas from return ticket as provided by o.p. it appears that the return journey was from Srinagar to New Delhi and the date of return was reflected as 1.5.12. It is curious and note that how the return journey is before the outbound journey. Since the complainant was surprised to see the anomalies of the dates reflecting on the rickets. The complainant immediately contacted o.p. and requested them to rectify the anomalies appearing in the ticket but the request of he complainant was turned down. Finding no other alternative, the complainant asked to cancel to those tickets and return the amount paid to Hindol Tourism. Thus the complainant though arranged to venture out for a family tour for their enjoyment could not availed the same due the sheer negligence and latches on the part of o.p.
Thereafter complainant on several occasions visited the office of o.p. in order to get the amount refunded but o.p. avoided the complainant on one pretext and another. On great persuasions and constant request o.p. ultimately issued two post dated cheques bearing nos.180856 dt.3.6.12 and 180857 dt.3.7.12 of similar amounts of Rs.25,200/- arbitrarily and illegally deducting from the said amount of Rs.64,000/- paid by complainant in cash. It is further pertinent mention here that it is the o.p. for whose latches and negligence the complainant has to suffer and was deprived to enjoy the family tour but on the contrary o.p. has deducted the same amount arbitrarily and illegally.
Thereafter, complainant presented the said cheques for payment for two times on 3.7.12 and 1.10.12 within the validity period of those cheques in the bank account of the complainant. But the said cheque was returned unpaid by the banker of o.p. on 14.7.12 and 5.10.12 consecutively with a similar remark “insufficient of fund”. Thereafter on 10.10.12 complainant sent notice to o.p. no.2 for taking action against Hindol Tourism and o.p. no. 3 and on 16.10.12 sent notice to o.p. no.3 demanding the cheques amount but all attempts to recover his hard earned money went failed.
Complainant informed the o.ps. about dishonour of such cheques by writing a letter 17.10.12 demanding payment of the said cheque amount which was received by o.ps. but there was response from the side of o.ps. Complainant sent another letter written under the hands of his ld. advocate dt.16.10.12 U/s 138 N.I. Act, 1881 but the said letter too did not fetch any result.
O.ps. did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the evidence of the complainant and documents in particular and we find that sometimes in the month of Feb.2012, complainant was offered with 8 nights and 9 days tour package under (Splendid Kashmir with LTC) Scheme being promoted by Hindol Tourism at a concessional rate, the complainant was allured by such representation of o.po. no.1 according to the representation made by Hindol Tourism if the complainant avail the services of o.ps., he will get a better service than any other tour services. Since o.p. made a representation that they are conducting a special tour programme for the Central Govt. Employees to visit Jammu & Kashmir. O.p. represented itself that Hindol Tourism is an authorized service provider being approved by the department of tourism, Govt. of India, complainant relying on the representation made by o.p. has paid a sum of Rs.64,000/- to avail the services of Hindol Tourism for a family tour from Kolkata to Jammu & Kashmir via Srinagar.
We further find from the record that complainant informed the o.ps. about dishonour of such cheques by writing a letter 17.10.12 demanding payment of the said cheque amount which was received by o.ps. but there was response from the side of o.ps. Complainant sent another letter written under the hands of his ld. advocate dt.16.10.12 U/s 138 N.I. Act, 1881 but the said letter too did not fetch any result.
In view of the findings above and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we find that the evidence adduced by complainant has remained unchallenged testimony and we do not have any reason to disbelieve the same and as such, we hold that complainant has been able to prove his case and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.2 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no.1 without cost. O.p. no.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty four thousand) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
