For the Opposite Party: Ex Parte
DATE OF FILING: 04.07.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.07.2017
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party ( in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the O.P. situated at above address and doing business of tour and travels and offered to public about Group tour package to SIRIDI with certain terms and conditions. Accordingly the complainant booked for 9 persons on payment of Rs.50,000/- in two installments i.e. on 24.08.2012 of Rs.20,000/- bearing Money Receipt SL. No: 256 and 15.09.2012 of Rs.30,000/- bearing Money Receipt SL No. 357 dt.15.09.2012. The O.P. informed only month of tour i.e. December 2012 but did not mentioned the specific date of schedule of tour to the complainant. When the month was matured, the complainant in person and some time with his wife approached several time and finally the O.P. informed that the date will be scheduled in January 2013. The complainant waited for another 15 days but after some days, it comes to light that the O.P. fled away with money of many customers like complainant and closed the office. The complainant lodged complaint against the O.P. on 21.08.2015 and the Berhampur Town Police has seized the money receipts and handed over the same on Zimmanama to the complainant on the same day. In spite of several approaches in person to the O.P. no attempt was made by the O.P. to refund the amount nor taken to trip as per package in time which speaks volumes against the O.P. and it is clear case of service deficient and unfair trade practice of O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund the claimed amount of Rs.50,000/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of receipt of the amount, compensation of Rs.5000/- towards agonies suffered by the complainant physically, mentally and financially and any other relief the Forum deems fit.
3. Notice was issued against the Opposite Party but returned as not served. Then complainant preferred to publish in the local newspaper “Anupam Bharat”on dated 07.11.2016 (Monday). Then also he neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version, hence he is declared set ex parte on dated 05.01.2017.
4. On the date of final hearing of consumer dispute learned advocate as complainant is present before this Forum. We heard argument from the side of the complainant at length as the O.P. was declared ex parte on 05.01.2017. We perused the case record, pleading and relevant documents filed by the complainant. It is a fact not in dispute that the complainant accepted the offer of O.P. who is a tour and travel agency for a package of tour to Siridi for nine members. It is also a fact that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in two installment i.e. on 24.08.2012 a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid bearing Money Receipt Sl. No: 256 and on 15.09.2012 an amount of Rs.30,000/- was also paid bearing Money Receipt Sl. No.357 dated 15.09.2012. It is also a fact that the trip for Siridi was scheduled to be made on month of December 2012, but till January 2013 the O.P. neither chooses to take the trip to Siridi nor returned the money to the complainant. On query about the delay for filing the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to strike called by Advocates the complainant could not filed the complaint within two years of the dispute hence the complaint is barred by limitation but the same was condoned at the time of admission of the complaint hence we feel that the complaint is admitted for adjudication since the complaint has admitted the case after filing a delay condonation petition under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Forum has condoned the delay after going through sufficient cause and satisfied to do so. The O.P. neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version in this case to controvert the version of the complainant even after publication in the local daily i.e. Anupam Bharat. On perusal of the photocopy of receipt submitted by the complainant that he has deposited Rs.50,000/- before the O.P. and the complaint filed for deficiency in service against the O.P. and the O.P. despite service of notice did not prefer to appear and not controverted the complaint of the complainant. In our considered view, this absence from the part of O.P. is nothing but an admission from their own side. The O.P. received the amount for tour and did not take any step to operate the tour and even on demand not returned the amount received from the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances it is beyond doubt that the O.P. is deficiency in service for non-operation of tour to Siridi as agreed is certainly a deficiency in service. Moreover, the O.P. even after notice from this Forum did not prefer to controvert the allegations made by the complainant hence we hold that the same is a fact which is not denied by the O.P. The O.P. is, therefore, deficient in service and are liable to refund the amount received from the complainant and to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. Our finding is supported by the decision of Hon’ble State Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore, in the case of R. Govardhan Vs. Cox and King (India) Ltd reported in IV (2003) CPJ 574 where it was held that such- Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1) (g) - Tour and Travels- Deficiency in service- Tour cost paid by complainant- Tour unilaterally cancelled by O.P. without assigning any valid reason - No information regarding cancellation of tour communicated to complainant which resulted in untold misery to him and his minor son -Deficiency in service proved - OP liable to pay compensation. In the light of the above decision of law and taking into account to the facts and circumstances of the case we allowed the case of the complainant against O.P. who is deficient in service and liable to refund the amount received from the complainant.
5. As for as compensation is concerned we feel that in this case we would like to direct the O.P. to pay interest on the amount received from the complainant hence we are not inclined to award any compensation since interest and compensation both are can’t be awarded by a Consumer Forum. However, we are interested to direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation since the complainant was forced to file his consumer complaint in this Forum and unnecessary incurred expenses for that due to the negligence of the O.P. and to proceed with the case. In the light of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the O.P. who is deficient in service for non-operating the tour to Siridi and for non-refund of the amount to the complainant.
6. In the result, we direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with 6% interest per annum from the date of failure of tour plan i.e. 01.01.2013 to the complainant. The O.P. is also liable to pay modest sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The O.P. is directed to comply the above order within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under the relevant sections of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 20th July 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
