DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of December, 2022
C.C. 286/2022
Complainant
K. Thankamani,
Ochoyi House, Punnassery P.O,
Narikkuni Via,
Kozhikode – 673585.
Opposite Party
Jina Jaimon,
Excellent Indian Holidays,
Dr. A. R. Menon Road,
Naikannal, Trissur, 680001.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
Lured by the advertisement, on 18/01/2022 the complainant booked 2 seats for the Dubai tour to be conducted by the opposite party. For that purpose, she paid a total sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the opposite party. Out of this, Rs. 75,000 was paid through Phonepe and balance of Rs. 40,000/- was remitted in the office of the opposite party.
3. But the opposite party failed to conduct the tour in January 2022 as promised. It was informed that the tour was postponed to 18/04/2022, 23/05/2022 and 26/10/2022. But the opposite party failed to conduct the tour or refund the amount. Hence the complaint for refund of the amount collected by the opposite party with interest along with compensation of Rs. 5000/-.
4. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
(2) Whether the prayer for refund is allowable? If so, what is the quantum?
(3) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so, what is the quantum?
(4). Reliefs and costs.
6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4.
7. Heard the complainant.
8. Points 1 to 3 : These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by her for the Dubai tour promised to be conducted by the opposite party, along with compensation. The grievance of the complainant is that eventhough the opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 1,15,000 from her for the tour, there was neglect on the part of the opposite party either to conduct the tour or refund the amount.
9. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant got herself examined as PW1 who has filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Exts A1 to A4 screenshots show that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the opposite party through Phonepe. It is averred in the affidavit that the opposite party neither conducted the tour as promised nor refunded the amount. The opposite party has not turned up to file version. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 documents.
10. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount paid by her. But the case of the complainant that she had paid a total sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the opposite party is not supported by any documents. Exts A1 to A4 relate to payment of Rs. 75,000/- only. Though she claims that payment of Rs. 40,000/- was made in the office of the opposite party, no such documents are produced before this Commission. The payment of only Rs. 75,000/- is supported by documents. There is no evidence regarding the alleged payment of Rs. 40,000/-. That being so, the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the opposite party. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite party has caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant, for which, she is entitled to be compensated adequately. The claim for compensation is Rs. 5,000/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the claim is reasonable. Points found accordingly;
11. Point No.4: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 286/2022 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the complainant.
c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
d) The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 75,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% p.a from the date of this order till realisation.
e) No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of December, 2022.
Date of Filing: 28/10/2022.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Screenshot of Phonepe.
Ext. A2 – Screenshot of Phonepe.
Ext. A3 – Screenshot of Phonepe.
Ext. A4 – Screenshot of Phonepe.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – K. Thankamani (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
