PER :HON’BLE ;SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, “the Act”) is at the instance of Complainant to impeach the Judgment/final order being order No.41 dated 07.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia at Krishnanagar (in short Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.172/2014 whereby the complaint lodged by the appellant u/s 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

            The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that being allured of an advertisement of a tour flouted by the OP travel agency named “European Essence” for itinerary of 10 nights/11 days, he booked a tour slot schedule on 12.04.2014 for himself and his wife and for that purpose he paid Rs.3,57,970/-.  The complainant has alleged that during tour, on 19.04.2014 Euro 30 was stolen from his room No.376 in Moven Pick Hotel, Switzerland on 19.04.2014.  The complainant has also alleged that the OP travel agency did not show the Roman Forum, the Arch De Constantine, The Pantheon, The Victoria Emanuel Monument, The Trevi Fountain on 23.04.2014.  The OP travel agency also did not show Windmill, Cheese and Clog factory on 15.04.2014.  The complainant has further alleged that the OP travel agency did not show Panoramic view of the Grand Palace, Manikin Pis on 15.04.2014 and violated  the terms and  of the contract and the promise made in their Itinerary. Hence,  the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OP/respondent with prayer for several reliefs, viz- (a) a direction upon OP to refund Rs.3,57,970/- i.e a full cost of the tour; (b) to pay interest  @ 18% p.a. over the amount; (c)  to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (d) to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.

            The respondent being OP by filing a written version disputed the allegations made by the complainant.  The OP has stated that they conducted the tour as per schedule and as per the terms and conditions and there was no negligence or deficiency in services on the part of them and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

            On evaluation of materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgment/final order dismissed the complaint which prompted the complainant to come up in the Commission with the present appeal.

            We have scrutinized the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Appellant, who appeared in person and the Ld. Advocate for the respondent.

             Undisputedly, respondent is a travel agency, who operates tour in different places of the country and abroad.  The respondent Company floated a tour named “European Essence” for the duration of 10 nights/11 days.  Being impressed, the appellant along with his wife decided to visit Europe on tour through the respondent on and from 12.04.2014.  In order to mitigate the expenses or claim of respondent Company, the appellant has paid Rs.3,57,970/- prior to schedule journey.  The appellant avail the said tour which was a group tour along with other visitors.

            However, after returning  the country, the appellant has raised several allegations against the respondent Company on the plea that the respondent has failed to fulfill their obligations in showing several places like – The Roman Forum, The Arch D Constantine, The Pantheon, The Victoria Emanuel Monument, The Trevi Fountain, Windmill, Cheese and Clog Factory etc.  In this regard, several correspondences were made by and between the parties.  According to the appellant, it was the respondent Company responsible for not showing the above mentioned places during tour.  On the contrary, the respondent Company by giving reply tried to absolve their responsibility in this regard.

            The Ld. District Forum disbelieved the case of appellant/complainant simply for the reason that the appellant did not file reply against the questionnaire set forth by respondent with an affidavit.  The Ld. District Forum has rightly observe that in view of decision of the Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant vs.- Srinath Chaturvedi reported in (2002) 6SCC 635 the said reply has no value in the eye of law. 

            In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has made several aspersions against the Ld. District Forum and in fact the appellant attacked the non-judicial member, who presided over the Bench.  Nowhere in the memorandum of the appeal, the appellant has mentioned why the impugned order should not be sustained.  The grounds of the appeal appear to be a blame game by the appellant.  

            It is true that a person may proceed with the case either by himself or engaging an Advocate.  In all fairness, the appellant should have filed the reply through affidavit an unless the reply is filed through affidavit, the Ld. District Forum cannot entertain the same.  The respondent has made several correspondences with the respondent Company but when no reply has been given against the questionnaire of the appellant, where several important questions were put, an adverse presumption should be drawn against the appellant. 

            After giving due consideration to the submission made on behalf of the parties, we find that the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that when the appellant has failed to produce cogent evidence in support of his contention relating to deficiency in services, the complaint should be dismissed.  In other words, we do not find any loophole or shortcoming in passing the order impugned.

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

            The impugned judgment/final order is hereby affirmed.

            The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia at Krishnanagar for information.       

             The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia at Krishnanagor  for information.  

          The Respondent No.1 herein being complainant lodged the complaint  under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum asserting that being owner of a piece of a bastu land and property in Mouza- Bijoynagar, P.S.- Joynagar, District- South 24 Parganas had applied for electric connection at his premises.  On 01.07.2014 quotation was provided and the complainant deposited Rs.200/- as earnest money, service connection charges of Rs.200/- and also security deposit of Rs.590/- aggregating Rs.990/- only before Joynagar Group Electric Supply.  The complainant has alleged that he has contacted with the OP No.1 for installation of the electric meter on several occasions but OP No.1 refused to install the same.  Hence the respondent No.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for direction upon OP No.1 to install the electric meter, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- etc.

          The appellant being OP No.1 by filing a written version has stated that he was always ready to give the new connection to the complainant but the complainant has failed to make arrangement for free way leave or to provide any alternative route.  It is further stated by OP No.1 that OP Nos. 2 to 5 raised strong objection against the electric line being drawn to the house of the complainant over their land and therefore, it was not possible for OP No.1 to give electric connection to the complainant.  The OP No.1 has stated that there was no deficiency in services on the part of them.

          The respondent Nos. 2 to 5/OP Nos. 2 to 5 by filing a separate written version have stated that they are co-owners of the complainant upon the land on which the house of the complainant is situated and the dispute being a boundary dispute it can only be determined by a competent Civil Court.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain direction upon OP No.1 as indicated above.  Challenging the said order, OP No.1 has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the installation of electricity in the premises of respondent No.1 was effected on 19.02.2018 in compliance with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum.  He has assailed the order only on the ground that as there was inter-se dispute between the co-owners and the respondent No.1 has failed to provide any free way leave as per regulation No.61 of W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission, the order of compensation of Rs.5000/- should not have been awarded by the Ld. District Forum.  The said submission was vehemently opposed by the Ld. Advocate for respondent No.1.  None appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to participate in the hearing of appeal.

          I have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.

          The evidence on record indicates that the respondent No.1 had applied for electric connection at his premises lying and situated at Vill. + P.O.- Dakshin Bijoynagar, P.S.- Joynagar, District- South 24 Parganas.  On the basis of such application, quotation was floated by the  W.B. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) on 01.07.2014 and immediately the respondent No.1 deposited earnest money of Rs.200/-, service connection charges of Rs.200/- and also security deposit of Rs.590/- totalling Rs.990/-. 

          It is alleged by the respondent No.1 that time and again he requested the Station Manager, Joynagar G.E.S to install the electric meter in his premises but he refused to do the same.  On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of appellant that the co-owners of respondent No.1 has raised serious objection for which they could not provide service connection.

          It is true that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 being co-owners of the property raised objection for which the respondent No.1 could not take appropriate steps.  However, there is no document whatsoever to show that after receipt of quotation, the men of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. immediately visited the house of respondent No.1 to install connection.  It would reveal that after lodging complaint on 01.04.2016, the Station Manager lodged one General Dairy with Joynagar P.S.  stating that on 09.05.2016 at about 12.30 p.m. they visited the house of respondent No.1 to give effect electric connection but due to local objection it could not be possible.  On 09.05.2016 for the first time the appellant informed respondent No.1 as to make arrangement of an alternative route for providing service connection through that route. Therefore, it is evident that in between 01.07.2014 and 01.04.2016 for long 21 months the appellant has shown masterly inactivity in adhering to the quotation submitted by respondent No.1.

          Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act which is relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case is as follows:

          “14 finding of the District forum. – (1) if, after the proceeding conducted Under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following  things, namely:

..................................

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.”

          The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof or loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the service provider.  Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled.  There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury.  In the case before hand, the Ld. District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.5000/- which does appeare to be unreasonable or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the Station Manager of Joynagar C.C.C. has failed to advance any reasonable explanation for  non-communication the respondent No.1 to provide a free way leave till 09.05.2016. 

           Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  There will be, however, no order as to costs in this appeal.

          The impugned judgment/ final order is hereby affirmed.

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