BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 20/04/2011

Date of Order : 31/07/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 201/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainants' case are as follows :

The complainants conducted Haj Pilgrimage in the year 2009 through the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainants lost two baggages while traveling from Jidda to Mekkah on 16-11-2009. The baggages contained basic food stuffs apparels and other articles worth Rs. 12,406/- and Rs. 17,225/- respectively. The baggages were lost due to the negligent handling of the same by the volunteers employed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties thereby, they are vicariously liable to the loss. The complainants submitted claim application in the prescribed form along with the list of articles to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Since there was no response, the complainants caused to issue a lawyer notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 15-05-2010. They intimated that they have directed the 3^rd opposite party to settle the claim. However, the 3^rd opposite party did not settle the claim for their own reasons. So again the complainants caused to issue legal notice to the opposite parties, they did not respond to the same. Thus, the complainants are before us seeking directing against the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 29,631/- together with costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows :-

The complainants are not consumers as defined in section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The 1^st opposite party is a statutory body constituted by Haj Committee Act 2002. The services rendered by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are without any consideration. The complainants are Haj Pilgrims of Haj 2009 selected through the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has no control over the affairs of the pilgrims in Saudi Arabia. The complainants ought to have kept the baggages in their custody during their travel from Jiddah to Mekkah. Since the alleged incident happened outside India, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The loss if any caused to the complainants have occurred only due to the sheer negligence on their part. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed a separate version raising similar contentions that of the 1^st opposite party.

4. The 3^rd opposite party has not filed any version in this complaint.

5. The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainants. The witness for the 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW2. Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on their side. No oral evidence was adduced by the 3^rd opposite party. Exts. B6 and B7 were marked on their side. Heard the 1^st complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainants are consumers within the ambit of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 29,631/- from the opposite parties?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

7. Point No. i. :- The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are constituted under the Haj Committee Act 2002 for making arrangements for the pilgrimage of Muslims for Haj and for matters connected therewith. As per Section 40 of the Act to prosecute the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, prior permission is to be obtained from the Central or State Government as the came may be. Even at the outset, the complainants have not sought for the same evidence not produced thereto.

8. Even according to the complainants, they have not paid any consideration for the service rendered by the opposite parties except the statutory charges for the travel and incidental expenses alone, which would not amount to a consideration as stated in the Consumer Protection Act. In the absence of it being made clear that there has been no consideration paid by the complainants to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, which would keep them away from the definition of a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. In the above circumstances, we are of the firm view that remedy of the complainants, if any lies elsewhere, they are free to approach the appropriate authority, if so advised, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. In view of the above, the proceedings is closed before this Forum, however, leaving the complainants at liberty to retrieve the complaint and related documents for further action, if any. It shall also be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of July 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========