DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/18/427

Date of Institution : 13.06.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 14.09.2022

Mrs. Kanwaldeep Kaur wife of Shri Sukhwinder Singh resident of House No. 31, D-Block, Sandhu Avenue, Chheharta, Amritsar. …Complainants

Versus

1. Intouch Travel Solutions, through its Prop./Partner/Manager/ Authorized Person namely Ankur Goyal, P-35, Radha Bazaar, Lal Bazaar, Kolkatta-700001.

2nd Address: 6, Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram-122008.

2. Jet Airways (India) Limited, through its MD/Director/GM/Manager or authorized person, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099.

3. Development Credit Bank Limited, 42/1-B, Gariahat Road, Near Gol Park, Kolkatta-700029 through its Branch Manager. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 read with Section 2 C (i), (ii) and (iii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Sumant Tuteja Adv counsel for complainant.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.

Sh. Rajesh Bhatia Adv counsel for the opposite party No. 2. Sh. Davinder Pathak Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 read with Section 2 C (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Intouch Travel Solutions, Kolkatta and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 1 who said that they are IATA approved travel agents and offered various travel plans for Thailand. The complainant booked three airway tickets with opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 in the names of Sukhwinder Singh husband, Kanwaldeep Kaur self and Hansika Gill daughter for 8.6.2018 departing from New Delhi to Bangkok and return airways ticket dated 14.6.2018 departing from Bangkok to New Delhi. The status of said tickets were confirmed as per flight ticket provided by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 also booked one room for the complainant and her family in Centara Pattaya Hotel, Pattaya for 9.6.2018 till 12.6.2018 for three persons. The opposite party No. 1 also booked one hotel room at Hotel Ibis Bangkok, Sukhumvit 4, Bangkok for 12.6.2018 till 14.6.2018 and for the said facilities the opposite parties had charged Rs. 68,000/- from the complainant which was paid by the complainant through RTGS in favour of opposite party No. 1 in her account with opposite party No. 3. The said tickets were also shown to be confirmed on the official website of Jet Airways. 

4. It is further alleged that on 28.5.2018 it was surprise for the complainant when she checked the said tickets again on Jet Airways official website and helpline number she came to know that the said three confirmed tickets had been cancelled when the complainant paid the entire charges of said tour to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant tried to contact the opposite party No. 1 but their mobiles have been switched of. The complainant also sent various emails to the opposite party No. 1 but no response has been given by the opposite party. The complainant also made complaint to the police but of no use. When three tickets were booked in the name of complainant and her family members the opposite party No. 1 cannot cancel the said tickets on his own without the consent of the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 also connived with the opposite party No. 1 as they allowed the opposite party No. 1 to cancel the three tickets without the consent of the complainant and also got released the air fare in favour of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 3 also connived with the opposite party No. 1 as they open a current account in their bank of opposite party No. 1 without verifying about the complete details of opposite party No. 1. The complainant sent many emails to the opposite party No. 2 and 3 for refund of Rs. 68,000/- but to no effect which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to release the amount of Rs. 68,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. May 2018 till the realization of actual amount.

2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.  

3) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

5. The opposite party No. 1 preferred to remain exparte.

6. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not their consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the complainant and opposite party No. 1 has not booked any ticket through the opposite party No. 2 and complainant deal with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 whose offices are situated at Gurgaon and Kolkata. The complainant mentioned in the complaint that opposite party No. 1 has committed fraud with her so fraud cases are not entertained by the Consumer Forums.  

7. On merits, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 1 is not IATA approved travel agent of the opposite party No. 2. No ticket of the complainant was booked by any travel agent or opposite party No. 1 from the answering opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 or its employees are not hand in glove with the opposite party No. 1. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2 with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 

8. The opposite party No. 3 also filed written reply by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the contents of the complaint are false and frivolous. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The answering opposite party No. 3 is a bank and works under the rules and regulations of the RBI. The answering opposite party at the time of opening of account of opposite party No. 1 adhered to the KYC norms as circulated through circulars by RBI. The opposite party No. 3 is not liable for any bookings of the trip done between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party and complainant suffered no loss because of opposite party No. 3.

9. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer. It is admitted that amount of Rs. 68,000/- was credited in the account of the opposite party No. 1 maintained by opposite party No. 3. The answering opposite party never received any mail from the complainant. Moreover, answering opposite party cannot refund any amount to the complainant by debiting the same to the account of the opposite party No. 1. Rest of the allegations in the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 3 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua the answering opposite party No. 3 with costs. 

10. To prove their case the complainant filed documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A. The opposite party No. 2 filed affidavit of Vishal Luthra Ex.OP-2/A and Ex.OP-2/1. The opposite party No. 3 only filed affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Authorized Signatory DCB Bank Limited, Ludhiana. 

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.

12. Before going into the merits of the present complaint firstly we decide the preliminary objections taken by the opposite party No. 2. The first main objection of the opposite party No. 2 is that the complainant and opposite party No. 1 has not booked any ticket through the opposite party No. 2 rather the complainant deal with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 whose offices are situated at Gurugram and Kolkatta so this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. We have also perused the address of the offices of the opposite parties. The offices of the opposite party No. 1 is at Kolkatta and Gurugram and office of the opposite party No. 2 is at Mumbai whereas the office of the opposite party No. 3 is also at Kolkatta, so no branch office of any of opposite parties is at Amritsar. 

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Reported in 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) Page-01 in which Hon'ble Apex Court held as under.-

“ A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17- Jurisdiction-Appellants godown caught fire at Ambala- Claim petition under Section 17 filed before Consumer Forum, UT, Chandigarh-Insurance policy was taken at Ambala and claim for compensation was made at Ambala- No part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh-Hence, Consumer Forum, UT Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)- Expression Branch Office- Meaning thereof-Expression branch office means the branch office where cause of action has arisen.

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)- Cause of action- Meaning thereof- Expression Cause of action means bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.”

This citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is fully applicable to the present matter as in the present matter also complainant has failed to prove that any part of cause of action has arisen at Amritsar and it is proved on the file no branch office of any of the opposite parties is at Amritsar as mentioned above, so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. 

14. The second main objection of the opposite party No. 2 is that as the complainant mentioned in the complaint that opposite party No. 1 has committed fraud with her so fraud cases are not entertained by the Consumer Forums. We have perused the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant in support of her complaint Ex.CW-1/A and in para No. 5 of the complaint the complainant mentioned that she also made a complaint to the police but no action has been taken by the police against the opposite party No. 1 till date. Even she filed copy of complaint given to the Incharge Police Station, Chheharta, Amritsar Ex.C-9. In this application she specifically requested that case of fraud be registered against the opposite parties and action be taken accordingly. 

15. The Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Srimati Jit Kaur Versus M/s Gurcharan Singh Mohinder Singh Commission Agents bearing complaint No. 76 of 2000 decided on 24.7.2002 held that;

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12 and 17 Commission agent-Fraud- Jurisdiction-Complainant allegedly deposited total amount of Rs. 5,13,000/- with OPs on different dates-OP, Commission agents, had promised to repay the amount with 12% p.a. interest-OP Nos. 1 to 5 were partner of a Commission Agents Firm and undertook to repay the amount with joint and several liabilities-There are complicated issues involved in the complaint-Various criminal and civil proceedings were initiated already making the matter complex-In such matter elaborate evidence is required which is not possible in summary proceedings under CP Act-Complaint dismissed.”

In the case before the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh the complainant registered an FIR No. 81 dated 16.5.2000 against the opposite parties. In the case in hand the complainant also filed an application with the Incharge, Police Station, Chheharta Amritsar Ex.C-9 in which she alleged that the opposite parties have committed fraud with her and requested him to register against them for playing fraud with the complainant. So, in the present case also complicated issues of criminal and civil proceedings involved which cannot dealt in summary procedure. Further, in the present matter also elaborate evidence is required to reach at the just conclusion which is not possible in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. 

16. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum now Commission being complicated questions of law and facts are involved and for want of territorial jurisdiction, accordingly the same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        14th Day of September 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member