Date of filing :12.7.2017
Judgment : Dt.20.4.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Pranab Gayen and Smt. Soumi Gayen alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties namely (1) Mr. Soaib Khan, (2) Mr. Zahid Rafique and (3) Mr. Visal Suri.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainants booked tour itinerary for “European Splendour” by paying Rs.14,000/- to the SOTC Travel Pvt. Ltd. The Complainants have stated that they deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,000/- with SOTC by cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank for taking part in the proposed tour which was to be held on and from 10.5.2017 and on 27.01.2017 receiving information from OP No.1 regarding confirmation of booking of flight ticket, and accommodation for staying abroad, the Complainants as per direction of OPs appeared before the VISA issuing authority with necessary documents on 19.4.2017 but the said authority rejected their prayer for VISA on the ground that “purpose and conditions of the intended stay were not reliable” and intimated the same by a letter dt.19.4.2017 to the Complainant. The Complainants informed the same to the OPs and demanded \ refund of money which was deposited with SOTC by letter dt.1.6.2017, but that yielded no fruitful result and finding no other alternative the Complainants filed this case. But the prayer portion of the instant Consumer Complaint remains vacant.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia, that OP Nos.1 & 2 employee of SOTC Travel Pvt. Ltd. which is now SOTC Travel Company and OP No.3 Managing Director of SOTC performed their duty as employee of the company and no individual relationship is exist between them and the Complainants. The OPs have further stated that the Complainant had deposited Rs.1,06,000/- towards booking money knowing well that the amount was non-refundable. It is further stated by the OP that Complainants have paid another amount of Rs.1,75,824/- and balance amount of Rs.1,27,301/- was paid on 6.5.2017 which was to be paid 45 days prior to the date of scheduled tour, moreover, it was their (Complainants) duty to present themselves before the VISA issuing authority along with required documents which was duly intimated by the OPs through e-mail on 7.4.2017. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and accordingly prays for dismissal of this case.
The Complainants annexed receipt dt.22.01.2017 issued by SOTC. Letter dt1.6.2017 issued by the Complainants to the executive Sales. Copy of e-mail, Rejection Memo. etc.
The OPs annexed Booking Form, Letter dt. 26.7.2018 issued by Zahid Rafique, letter dt.7.4.2017, etc.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that due to negligence on the part of the OPs the Complainant lost the opportunity to take part in their dream tour.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OPs submitted that neither of them is the proprietor of the Company as mentioned by the Complainants since it is a Limited Company. Moreover, the Complainant filed this complaint against OPs who are the employee of the SOTC Travel Ltd. Company but does not make the Company as a party and accordingly prays for dismissal of the complaint for non-joinder of necessary party.
Main points for determinations
- Whether the complaint is Maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
Admittedly the Complainants have paid an amount of Rs.1,06,000/- towards booking amount and an amount of Rs.1,75,824/- with the SOTC and balance amount of Rs.1,27,301/- was paid on 6.5.2017. It is also admitted that VISA was rejected by the concerned embassy for which the Complainants could not avail the tour which was scheduled to be held on and from 10.05.2017.
The Complainant has alleged that in spite of making payment of required amount and compliance of all required formalities on the part of the Complainant the VISA authority refused to grant VISA which according to the Complainant is utter failure on the part of the OP No.1 & 2 as well as OP No.3.
The opposite parties in their defence stated that the OP Nos.1 & 2 are employees of the company and OP No.3 is the Managing Director of the Company and the OPs have no relationship with the Complainant with their individual capacity and they are not proper and necessary party to the instant Consumer Complaint although the Complainant described the OP No.2 as proprietor of SOTC Travel Limited but fact remains that there is no provision under law to be proprietor of any Limited Company and therefore the OP No.2 was described wrongly as proprietor of SOTC.
On scrutiny of document, it appears that the Complainant deposited the amount to SOTC and made correspondence to SOTC Limited Company but did not make SOTC as party to the instant case. It is evident that presence of SOTC is require to adjudicate the present case.
Hence the SOTC Limited Company is considered to be the necessary party to the instant case.
Therefore, it is held that the petition of complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party.
Further, on perusal of petition of complaint, it appears that no prayer had been made in the petition of complaint. Therefore, it appears that the petition of complaint is incomplete in nature.
In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form.
Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2
Since the point No.1 is decided negative, there is no scope to go into the merit of the complaint.
In such view of the matter the instant petition
In the result, the CC/381/2017 does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/381/2017 is dismissed on contest for non joinder of necessary party.
