Order-26.

Date-08/11/2016.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The Complainants’ case in short is that the Complainants’ invested a total amount of Rs.54,000/- with the OP Company persuaded by the representative of OP, namely one Krishna Chandra Biswas. The Complainants booked product by depositing the said amount with the OP. The maturity date of the invested amount was 30/12/2013. It is alleged that the Complainants have not received the matured amount from the OP Company till date. Hence, this case.

          The OP has contested this case in filing W.V. contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in law or in part. It is stated that the Complainants are not consumers in terms of the provision of the Consumer Act,1986 and the present  dispute is not a consumer dispute. It is stated that the present case is nothing but money suit which can be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. It is also stated that the OP is a tour conducting agency and its object is to ensure memorable vacation to the intending persons. The vision of the OP is to deliver unique and top quality luxurious hospitality to the members in a stress free eco-friendly environment. It is stated that the Complainants with an intention to make tour initially applied in a prescribed form for booking tour package and the Complainants paid a part amount against the said package tour and also undertook to pay the balance amount as per scheme. It is also stated that as per terms of the policy of package tour, the tour package will start after a specific period subject to total payment. But the Complainants failed to pay the balance amount as per the scheme. It is also alleged that the OP has spent huge amount for arranging the tour for the Complainants, but the Complainants have refused to take on the tour.

 It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for Decision

1)       Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?

2)       Whether the OP is guilty of deficiency in service?

3)       Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for?       

Decision with Reasons

          We have perused the documents on record, i.e. photocopy of advance booking acknowledgement receipt, photocopy of approval of booking issued by OP Company and other documents on record.

          No document is filed from the side of the OP, along with W.V.

          Perused the case record.  It appears that OP on 13.03.2016 filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case and the issue of maintainability is disposed of vide order no. 17 dated 16.06.2016 holding that the petition challenging the maintainability has got no merit and the petition dated 13.03.2016 filed by the OP stood rejected. OP has not performed any revision as against the impugned order No. 17 dated 16.06.2016 and the order as such sustains.

          We find that the Complainants have received receiptsregarding payment to the O.P. and all the receipts bear the seal and signatures of OP Company on various dates.  From the said payment receipts, it is established that there was contract between the Complainants and the OP. The OP has failed to provide any service to the Complainants. It is also appearing that the maturity date of the most of the invested amount has been over. It is alleged by the OP that Complainant is not willing to avail any tour. On the contrary Complainants have alleged that they are entitled to get matured amount and the story of the tour has no substance.

From the approval of booking certificate, we find that ‘product’ booked in lieu of money on different dates and there is no mention of any secured tour progrmmeon such certificates. Be that as it may, we find that Complainants have paid an amount of Rs.54,000/- to the OP on different dates. There is no document coming from the side of the OP that he has refunded or paid any refund amount to the Complainants. We think that the OP has indulged unfair trade practice in receiving investment from the Complainants, but without making any payment even after expiry of the date of maturity. The OP is as such found to be deficient in rendering service.

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

          The instant case is allowed on contest against the OP.

The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.54,000/- with 10 percentdeduction thereof on non-standard basis along with interest  at the rate of 7 percentp.a. on the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order in favour of the Complainants as per their respective investment.

OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainants as litigation cost.

Failure to comply with the order will entitle the Complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that event OP shall be liable to pay penal damage  at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.