Date of filing : 27.03.2017

Date of hearing :13.11.2017

       The assail in this appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,  1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of Complainant Smt. Arati Samaddar to impeach the judgement/ final order dated 29.11.2016 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur ( in short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 237/2015 whereby the complaint initiated by the Appelant U/s. 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest.

       The Appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint stating that as per agreement with the Opposite Party she choose a 13 days South Africa Tour named as South Africa Splendours with Kenya scheduled ex Mumbai on 10.04.2014 with a total tour costs of Rs 2,09,826/-. Accordingly, on 17.02.2014 Complainant purchased Air ticket for the journey from Kolkata to Mumbai for 09.04.2014 and also a ticket from Mumbai to Kolkata for 23.04.2014. The Complainant has paid a total sum of Rs 2.09.826/- for her said journey. The Complainant alleged that even after lapse of considerable period, the O.P did not arrange to provide Visa to her. At last on 08.04.2014 the Officer of O.P informed the Complainant that the Visa was going to be ready. Since the tour was scheduled to commence on 10.04.2014 and as the Visa was not ready till 08.04.2014 the Complainant was compelled to cancel her ticket on 08.04.2014 at about 9.57 P.M. for 09.04.2017 Kolkata to Mumbai air ticket and subsequently, the air ticket for the journey on 23.04.2014 from Mumbai to Kolkata. The Complainant send notice on 05.05.2014 to O.P to return the passport and money but till date the O.P has not refund any money to her. Hence, the Appellant approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency of services on the part of the Respondent with prayer for several reliefs like – a) For refund of Rs 2,09,826/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. ; b) Rs 9,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony ; c) Rs 7,00,000- as damages towards deficiency in services and d) litigation costs.

       The Respondent being O.P by filing Written Version (W.V) has stated that the Complainant voluntarily cancelled her tour with the O.P on 08.04.2014 prior to two days of departure while her Visa was granted by the consulate on 09.04.2014 and as such when there was no deficiency on the part of them, the Complaint should be dismissed.

        After assessing the pleadings and evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order dismissed the complaint with an observation that the O.P  / Respondent was not deficient in rendering services to the Appellant / Complainant. Being aggrieved with the said order, the Complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.  

       I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.

       Upon hearing the Ld. Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, it would reveal that the Appellant being an old aged lady had come into contact with the Respondent, who is a tour operator conducts national as well as international tours. The Appellant choose a 13 days South Africa Tour with the Respondent named as South Africa Splendours with Kenya which was scheduled to commence on 10.04.2014 and the said tour was supposed to end on 23.04.2014. In order to avail the said tour, the Appellant purchased air ticket for the journey from Kolkata to Mumbai for 09.04.2014 and also purchased air ticket for return journey from Mumbai to Kolkata for 23.04.2014 on payment of Rs 6917/- and Rs 5400/- respectively. As per agreement, the total costs of the tour was Rs 2,09,826/-. All these are admitted facts.      

       Now, the entire disputes between the parties centres around with regard to non availing of the tour by the Appellant on the ground that as visa was not ready till 08.04.2014 the Appellant cancelled her air ticket on 09.04.2014 from Kolkata to Mumbai and subsequently, the air ticket from Mumbai to Kolkata dated 23.04.2014. Undisputedly, the Visa was granted by the consulate in favour of the Appellant on 09.04.2014 i.e. the date before the date of schedule departure of the tour. The Appellant in the Petition of Complaint has admitted that on 08.04.2014 she was informed by the Officer of the Respondent Company that the Visa was going to be ready. It implies that the Appellant unilaterally should not have cancelled the trip. In certain circumstances, situation arises when a person gets his/her Visa on the date of journey and therefore, when the Respondent informed the Appellant to get her ready on 08.04.2014, the Appellant should not cancel the air tickets of Mumbai on 10.04.2014 as the tour was scheduled ex - Mumbai on 10.04.2014.

       The Ld. District Forum has observed – ‘cancellation was made by the Complainant prior to two days of the schedule tour by herself and had the complainant would have left Kolkata for Mumbai to avail the tour at Mumbai and then if the O.P failed to produce Visa, no doubt there was a case of deficiency in service. But Complainant did not move from Kolkata and cancelled the air ticket on her own will. Therefore, the entire episode and payment made by the Complainant for the above mentioned tour clearly demonstrates that complainant was an unwilling traveller for the tour of South Africa and Kenya which was scheduled to be commenced on 10.04.2014’. I do not find any reason to differ with the view of the Ld. District Forum. In other words, though it is quite apparent that the Appellant was a ‘Consumer’ who hired the services of Respondent on account of the scheduled tour of South Africa and Kenya on payment but when she herself  cancelled the tour on her own volition ignoring the fact that the Consulate has granted Visa in favour of her and the same was informed by the man of Respondent Company, the Respondent was not deficient in rendering services to the Appellant.

       Therefore, after giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of materials on record I do not find any illegality or short coming in passing the order impugned. In other words, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

       Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.

       The impugned judgement / final order is hereby affirmed.

         The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur for information.