Date of Filing : 16.06.2010
Date of Order : 26.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 26th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 1347/2010
Dr.C.S.Dwaraknath,
S/o.late.chokka Subbaiah,
No.1203/2, “Chokka Mane”,
5th Cross, 5th Main,
A Block, Sahkaranagar,
Banglaore 560 092.
(By Advocate Sri.B.R.Guruprasad)……. Complainant
V/s.
Shankar D.P.
KPS Holidays Pvt. Ltd.,
SLV Complex, No.76/11-1,
Elephant Rock Road,
3rd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore 11.
(By Advocate Sri.Harish H.V.) …..Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- are necessary.
1. The 1st OP is a tour organizer and the 2nd OP is the manager of the 1st OP and had advertised for the tours in India and abroad. Accordingly the complainant availed the services by paying Rs.3,47,200/- for four persons for the tour at Egypt and by going to Egypt, there were many discomforts, unfair trade practices deficiency in service committed. Hence the complaint.
2. In this case against OP1 was got dismissed by the complainant. OP2 has filed the version denying its liability and also on merits. OP 2 is only on record now.
3. To substantiate their case the parties have filed their respective affidavits. Arguments were heard.
4. The Points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether the OP2 i.e. OP is liable to answering the deficiency in service / unfair trade practice of deleted OP?
B) What order ?
5. Our answers are
A) Negative
B) As per detail order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the deleted 1st OP is KPS holidays pvt ltd., it has offered 7 nights and 8 days Egypt tour and detailed tour chart/ itinerary was issued in this regard. The said OP has issued itinerary between 12.10.2009 and 13.10.2009. In this regard there were many deficiencies in services and unfair trade practice committed by the 1st OP.
7. we have to see about whether the 1st OP i.e. OP now is in any way responsible. The complainant at para 3 has stated thus
“The complainant submits that, the 1st OP is a tour organizer and the 2nd OP is the manager of the 1st OP”
That means even according to the complainant the 2nd OP is only a manager of the deleted 1st OP. Hence work men of the 1st OP cannot be held to be liable for the action of the master. The vicarious liability means for the auction of the work men master is liable but not vise versa.
8. During the course of the argument the learned complainant has contended that, the visiting card of the 2nd OP does not say anything. Visiting card does not prove that, the 2nd OP is in any way in the organization of the 1st OP, as member of the 1st OP. Even according to the complainant, OP only a manager/employee. Hence he is not liable. If the complainant is entitled to, he can bring the action against the 1st OP for this; this order will not come in the way. And the complainant himself has admitted that the 2nd OP as a manager of the 1st OP. This action in his individual is not maintainable. And he is not liable. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following.
ORDER
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
