Date of filing :21.3.2017
Judgment : Dt.18.4.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Smt. Anuradha Mukherjee, w/o Sri Kamal Mukherjee, 58C, Lake Place, Kolkata-700 029 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties namely (1) Mr. Deep Narayan Dutta, Partner of M/s Happy Trails Inc., 23, Gariahat Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029 and (2) Smt. Indira Sen, 2/1A, Mukherjee Para Lane, P.S.-Kalighat, Kolkata-700 026.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that she being agreeable with the proposal given by the OP No.2, the Complainant along with her husband decided to avail a tour i.e. a trip to Turkey and deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 1st installment of the consideration amount vide cheque being No.216448 dt.16.06.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch, Kolkata, in favour of OP No.1 who duly encashed the same although subsequently the tour had been cancelled and the OP No.1 refunded Rs.50,000/- only instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, she has prayed for directions upon the OPs to refund the balance amount of consideration of Rs.50,000/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.30,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The OPs contested the case and filed separate written versions. In his written version the OP No.1 has stated that he purchased AIR tickets at instructions of the OP No.2 and, therefore, he is liable to furnish documents to the OP No.2 only.
In her written version, the OP No.2 has stated, inter alia, that she has no role to play in it since the proposed tour had been cancelled due to lack of minimum number of tourists.
The Complainant and OP No.2 files evidence. The OP No.1 prayed for treating the written version as affidavit-in-chief. Prayer was allowed. Both parties filed questionnaire and reply thereto.
The Complainant annexed tour itinerary.
In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 is not a service provider.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that cause of action of the instant Consumer Complaint arose against OP No.1.
Points for determination
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admitted position is that the Complainant along with her husband agreed to avail a tour to Turkey and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as to first installment to the OP No.1 who encashed the same. It is also admitted that subsequently the tour was cancelled and Rs.50,000/- was refunded to the Complainant.
The Complainant has stated that the OP No.1 Pvt. Ltd. Company cancelled the tour due to terrorist attack in Turkey and, therefore, the Complainant and her husband had no fault for cancellation of the tour and, therefore, they are entitled to get refund of the entire deposited amount but even after several correspondences from the end of the Complainant the OPs did not take any step to refund the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. The OP No.1 though stated that 50% of the deposited amount has been deducted for cancellation of the AIR Tickets which were bought under instruction of OP No.2 and therefore, the OP No.1 is liable to furnish documents related to cancellation of AIR Tickets, deduction of charges, etc. to the OP No.2 only and none else.
The OP No.1 although has claimed deduction of amount has been done due to cancellation charges of AIR Tickets but no document except a credit note dt.31.3.2017 of ‘Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd’ is filed wherefrom it appears that an amount of Rs.39,960/- was credited in favour of the Complainant on 19.9.2016 and the same amount on the same date has been credited on the account of her husband. However, it has not been cleared that what was the actual fare and what amount has actually been deducted for cancellation of the same. The OP No.1 has stated that he is liable to furnish the document before the OP No.2 only but, fact remains that the Complainant has filed the instant case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and, therefore, the OPs to substantiate their respective defence are liable to furnish the authentic documents before this Forum.
The OP No.1 has stated that the proposed trip to Turkey has been cancelled since the minimum Nos. of member required for undertaking such trip were not available. The OP No.2 has further stated that it was the OP No.1 who deducted the amount as per their cancellation tour in which the OP No.2 has nothing to do. Be the reason for cancellation of the tour as it may is evident from the statement of OP No.2 that the Complainant and her husband did not withdraw them from the proposed tour voluntarily. Moreover, refund of Rs.50,000/- by the OP No.1 indicates that the OP No.1 is any way connected with the touring business.
To sum up neither of the OPs has been able to substantiate the ground for deduction of the 50% of the deposited amount adducing such cogent evidence.
Under such state of affairs, we are of opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get entire deposited amount refunded. It is, however, not clear that in which capacity the OP Nos.1 & 2 work together but as the OP No.1 received the deposited amount admittedly, the OP No.1 is liable to refund the same.
The OPs compelled the Complainant to file the instant complaint. Therefore the OPs are liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- towards cost within above mentioned period.
Considering the circumstances, we are inclined to pass no order as to compensation.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant succeeds.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/165/2017 is allowed on contest with cost.
The OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant within one month. Failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.7,500/- jointly and severally to the Complainant within aforesaid period.
