HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent alongwith three members of his family, booked a Europe tour, including a cruise, with the petitioner company. The said tour was to last 19 days starting from 01.05.2008. The tour was booked for a price of Rs.7,16,600/-. However, the complainant and his family members were denied boarding on the cruise namely Aquamarine. This is also their case that the tour was abruptly terminated at Athens and therefore, they had to spend an amount of Rs.10,399/- on purchase of air tickets back to India. On return to India, they made a representation to the petitioner bringing the harassment suffered by them and the financial loss caused to them, to the knowledge of the petitioner company. The petitioner company offered a sum of Rs.1,49,048/- to the complainant and his family members in full and final settlement of their claim alongwith credit vouchers of Rs.5,000/- per person valid till 31.12.2009. The aforesaid however, was not accepted by the complainant who approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds including that the tour was curtailed on account of multiple entry VISA having not been allowed to the complainant and his family members and the petitioner had no control on the issuance of the multiple entry VISA which they required. 3. The State Commission allowed the Consumer Complaint with a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 10% per annum. It was also directed that the expenses incurred by the complainant for purchase of air tickets for return from Athens be also returned to them alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.25,000/-. While passing this order, the State Commission noted that the appellant had already agreed to make good the loss of the complainant by agreeing to refund the amount which he had spent alongwith the charges for the cruise. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant company is before this Commission. 5. When this appeal came up for hearing on 11.08.2017, a notice limited to the question of award of interest on the compensation was issued by this Commission. 6. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the State Commission ought not to have awarded interest on the amount of the compensation. To this extent, the order passed by the State Commission needs to be modified. However, I find that no interest to the complainant was awarded on the amount of Rs.1,49,048/- which the appellant had offered to the complainant and his family members even before the Consumer Complaint came to be instituted by them. Admittedly, the said amount remained with the appellant company, the same having not been accepted by the complainant and his family members. Had that amount been accepted by the complainant, they could have used the said amount for their own purposes. Since the said amount continued to be utilized by the appellant company, the said company, in all fairness, must pay suitable interest on that amount, so as to balance the equities. It is therefore, directed that while no interest on the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the State Commission would be payable by the appellant and only the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid, it shall pay in addition thereto, interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,49,048/- with effect from the date on which the said amount was offered till the date on which it is actually paid to the complainant. Since Rs.1,50,000/- out of the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid, the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid within six weeks. The appeal stands disposed of. |
