District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 43/2015
Sl No. | Name of complainants | Address |
1. | Tapati Mandal D/o Nalini Kanta Mandal | Vill.: Nepali Para, PO & PS: Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. |
2. | Suchanda Biswas W/o Utpal Biswas | Vill.: Nepali Para, PO & PS: Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. |
3. | Pali Choudhury D/o Late Trishira Dhar | Vill.: Narayanpur , PO & PS: Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. |
4. | Mali Choudhury D/o Late Trishira Dhar | Vill.: Narayanpur, PO & PS: Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. |
5. | Bijali Das W/o Lakshman Das | Vill & PO: Rampur , PS: Tapan Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. |
…………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. Mrinal Mandal,
Aghari Baba Mandir (Nine Jewels Club), Behind Adibasi Hostel,
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. Prabhash Mandal,
Vill.: Raghunathpur (Near CPM Party Office),
PO : Raghunathpur, PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. Beli Mahanta,
W/o Utpal Mahanta (Near Taranchandra School,
(Back side of WBSEDCL), PO: Beltalapark, PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Prasun Choudhury
For OP Nos. 1 & 2 ……………… - Shri Vivekananda Guha
For OP No. 3 ……………… - Shri Nirjus Moitra
Date of Filing : 11.12.2015
Date of Disposal : 08.03.2016
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 08.03.2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainants in order to enjoy Puja holidays contacted OP No. 3 who acted as an agent of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 who conducted a tour programme to different parts of eastern India and southern India which was mentioned in the leaflet issued by the OP Nos. 1 & 2. In the said leaflet the name of the OP No. 3 was mentioned to act as an agent of the said tour programme conducted by the OP Nos. 1 & 2.
Coming to know the said tour programme the complainants contacted OP No. 3 and she collected tour charges from the complainants. In the leaflet it was mentioned that a tour programme will continue for 24 days and accordingly the tour was started from Balurghat town on 23.10.2015 and the complainants visited different spots. After reaching state of Andhara Pradesh particularly after visiting Tirupati temple the OPs demanded further money for visiting of other places. Since, the amount mentioned in the leaflet covered all the places and no mention was made for further demand of money as such the complainants refused to pay any money for which the trouble started between the complainants and the OPs. While it was found that there was no chance of visiting other tourist places the complainants decided to return to Balurghat and the OP No. 3 who collected the money from the complainants admitted the collection of money from the complainants and she also agreed to return the amount after her arrival at Balurghat after adjusting the tour cost for 12 days. While the complainants demanded the amount from OPs but the OPs did not show any eagerness to return the money, being frustrated to get back money the complainants filed this case before this Forum praying for returning of the 50% agreed tour amount after adjusting from amount paid by each of the complainant. The complainants also prayed for compensation suffered by them.
Contd…P/3
OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing a written version the OPs denied all the materials allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the OP No. 1 is a bachelor and an aged person and he devoted his life for the welfare of Radhakrishna temple and OP No. 2 is a retired school teacher. On the request of complainants the OPs agreed to undertake a tour programme and accordingly a bus owner was consulted who charged Rs. 4,200/- per day and fuel cost plus (+) other incidental costs but visiting some places it was found that amount collected from the complainants was not adequate to cover the entire tour programme. The amount collected by the OP No. 3 did not handover the amount to the OP Nos. 1 & 2, as a result the OP Nos.1 & 2 who conducted the tour suffered financial loss. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 travelled with the complainants by visiting 32 places including Tarapith, Puri, Simlachalam, Tirupati, Annabharam & Santiniketan etc. While the tourists’ party wanted to visit Tamilnadu from Andhra Pradesh huge tax demanded. The OP No. 3 refused to pay the collected amount but in several places rooms were hired, as a result of which the tour programme has to be cancelled and ultimately the parties had to return after 12 days from the date of commencement of the tour programme.
OP No. 3 filed a written version whereby she denied that she accepted any money from the complainants. It was stated by the OP No. 3 that after coming to know of the said tour programme, the complainants some of whom were known to her and approached her and she acted as a link person between the complainants and OP Nos. 1 & 2. The actual fact as stated by the OP No. 3 is that after visiting Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh the bus driver after inspecting the bus refused to travel to other places at that time the tourist parties and the OPs made a quarrel amongst themselves and the complainants along with others pressurized the OP No. 3 to admit that she received the amount from them and she gave an undertaking that she would return the amount after her arrival at Balurghat. Actually she was threatened
Contd…P/4
by the complainants and she was pressurized to return the amount to the complainants for which the OP No. 3 had to lodge a complaint against the complainants. Since, this is a manufactured case, therefore, the OP No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the OP Nos. 1 & 2 conducted a tour programme?
- Whether the complainants paid the amount as was mentioned in the leaflet issued by the OP Nos. 1 & 2?
- Was the OP No. 3 acted as an agent and collected money from the complainants?
- Whether the tour programme was curtailed due to paucity of fund for non payment of the amount collected by the OP No.3 to OP Nos. 1 & 2?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for along with compensation?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
From the pleadings of the par ties it is crystal clear that a tour programme was organized by the OP Nos. 1 & 2. It is also admitted fact that all the complainants were participants of the said tour programme. They also paid amount for which the bus started for traveling on 23.10.2015 from Balurghat town. From the pleadings of the respective parties it is also found that the tour programme could not be completed as mentioned in the leaflet due to paucity of fund.
Ld. Lawyer for complainants argued that the complainants visited some places and since the entire places of interest were not
Contd…P/5
covered as mentioned in the leaflet, the complainants demanded money from the OP No. 3 after deducting 50% of the amount, which the OP No. 3 agreed to pay after arrival at Balurghat. But unfortunately the OP No. 3 did not return the amount as such the complainants had to file this case praying for return of the 50% of the amount as well as compensation. In support of the said contention the complainants filed a document on the reverse side of leaflet wherein the OP No. 3 admitted that she received the amount from the complainants and mentioning therein from whom and how much the amount received from an individual and OP No. 3 also put her signature in the said undertaking. Considering those aspects the Ld. Lawyer for the complainants as prayed for 50% of the amount paid by the complainants as well as compensation.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 argued that since full capacity of the bus was of 46 seats but out of them 32 persons had travelled and huge amount was paid to the bus owner in advance and en route travel from one state to another huge taxes were imposed for which the entire budget of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 failed for which the tour programme had to be curtailed, though some important places were visited including Tirupati temple and with the meager amount which was charged on an individual was not sufficient due to incapability of OP Nos. 1 & 2 to assess the amount involved in the said tour programme beforehand, since they had no experience prior to conducting of such tour as such considering all these aspects Ld. Lawyer emphasized that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 should be exonerated from the payment of any money particularly when they never received any money from the complainants.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 argued that the document which has been produced by the complainants had shown that the OP No. 3 gave an undertaking that she would return the money.
Contd…P/6
Though the OP No.3 claimed that the said undertaking was not written by her and only a signature was taken forcefully by the complainants since the complainants created trouble upon her for which she had to lodge a diary before Balurghat PS on 16.11.2015. In view of such backdrop of the case the OP No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties on perusal of the materials on record we found that the OP No. 3 received the amount which is also crystal clear from the objection filed by the OP Nos. 1 & 2. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 in the written version also stated that though the OP No. 3 collected money from the tourists but she did not handover the amount to the OP Nos. 1 & 2, as a result which the entire tour had programme frustrated. It is also found from the materials on record that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are aged persons and they conducted tour in some local areas but they have no such experience and expertise including introduction of young men in the said conducted tour particularly when female tourists were traveling in the said tour programme. Such conduct of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 fortifies claim of the complainants that they suffered mental agony not only during the journey but also there was serious lapse on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2 to provide securities to the female travellers. Because of good luck no untoward incident did take place only the period of journey was curtailed due to financial stringency because of non-providing of the amount collected by the OP No. 3 to the OP Nos. 1 & 2.
The OP No. 3 though claimed that she lodged a diary in the local PS but in the said diary there was no mentioning of the fact that she was forced to write an undertaking that she would return the amount to the complainant and others.
In view of such facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the claim as made by the complainants regarding 50% of the amount
Contd…P/7
paid by the OP No. 3 is justified and they will be entitled to get 50% of the amount from the OP No. 3. It is relevant to mention herein that the complainant No.5 travelled with her son and she paid Rs.15,000/- and since son was also in the said tour programme, therefore, the complainant No.5 will be entitled to get 30% of the amount paid by herwhich is to be paid by the OP No. 3. Since, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 conducted a tour programme causing untoward trouble to the complainants, therefore, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 will have to pay the compensation to the complainants.
Thus, all the points are disposed accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.43/2015 is allowed on contest against the OPs.
The OP No. 3 is directed to pay 50% of the amount collected from complainant nos. 1 to 4 and 30% of the amount collected from complainant no.5 to the complainants as mentioned herein above within 60 days from this day failing which the complainants will get 8% interest p.a. till the realization of the amount.
OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainants within 60 days from this day towards loss suffered by the complainants.
The complainants are directed to pay 50% of the cost amount in the legal aid fund, after receiving of the amount if paid in cash they (complainants) have to inform in writing to the office forthwith, in the “ State Consumer Welfare Fund ” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch within 7 days from the date of receipt of the same.
Contd…P/8
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
…………..….…….
(S. N. Chatterjee)
President
I concur,
………....……
(S. Ganguli)
Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
