Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/479/2012

Shakti Sanan s/o Shri Ashok Sanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dream Travels - Opp.Party(s)

VK Sharma

23 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No. 479 of 2012.

                                                                                           Date of institution: 14.05.2012

                                                                                           Date of decision: 23.05.2016.

Shakti Sanan aged about 28 years son of Shri Ashok Sanan, Resident of 198-L, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

M/s Dream Travels, S.C.O. 21-25, Sector-70, Mohali (Punjab), Contract No. 9780883713 through its Sole Proprietor Sonu Kumar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Respondent.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                OP already ex-parte.          

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay balance amount of Rs. 15000/- with interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the month of February 2012, OP came to Yamuna Nagar and met the complainant and discussed for a trip to Thailand. The Op told to the complainant that there is a package of Thailand of Rs. 25,800/- per person for three (3) nights’ accommodation in Pattaya and 3 nights accommodation in Bangkok. After discussing the same, the complainant got reserved two seats under the said package and paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash for two persons to the OP as advance. Again on 22.02.2012, the complainant deposited Rs. 35,000/- in the account of the OPs. The complainant was required to pay total sum of Rs. 51600/- for the said trip as per package and out of this amount a total sum of Rs. 45000/- was paid by the complainant to the OPs. After depositing the said amount, the complainant asked the OP to send the complete detail of trip, so, that balance amount of Rs. 6600/- could be sent.  The OP instead of sending the detail of the trip, asked the complainant to pay further Rs. 5000/- per person besides making the balance payment of Rs. 6600/- and only then, the journey details will be given to the complainant. As the OP with ulterior motive and malafide intention, wanted to grab more money, so, the complainant made up his mind and contacted other tour agency namely Vibrant Vacations (India) Pvt. Ltd. and enjoyed the trip to Thailand. The said trip was with better facilities and better flight, less charges and had full transparency. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP to return the amount of Rs. 45,000/- already deposited with him so many times but the OP only returned an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and still a balance of Rs. 15000/- is due against the OP which was not returned till today despite so many requests. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2014.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of e-mail detail of package of dream travels as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt for depositing of Rs. 35,000/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Pacakage of Vibrant Vacations (India) Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of detail of telephone calls as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     After going through the contents of the complaint and evidence filed by the complainant, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. Firstly, the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence that any agreement was executed between the parties at Yamuna Nagar. Moreover, no such type of evidence has been filed to prove that any alleged discussion took place at Yamuna Nagar i.e. in the Jurisdiction of this Forum. From the perusal of the head note, it is evident that the office of OP is situated at Mohali and no branch office is situated at Yamuna Nagar or in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Further the complainant has also failed to file any cogent evidence that he paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash as no such type of receipt for making the payment of Rs. 10,000/- in cash has been placed on file. Further in the absence of any agreement executed between the parties, this Forum is unable to hold that there was any lapse on the part of OP. Mere filing the photo copy of detail of package Annexure C-1, it cannot be presumed that complainant paid Rs. 35,000/- as well as Rs. 10,000/- in cash to the OP and hired the services of the OP. We have carefully and minutely perused the details of package (Annexure C-1) where the name of the complainant is not mentioned. It seems that it is only general instructions down loaded from the internet by the complainant. Hence, from the perusal of this document it cannot be said that the complainant hired the services of the OP.

7.                        Though in the present complaint, the OP has neither appeared nor defended the case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite parties.

8.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and further failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 23.05.2016.                                                    

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

                                                   

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.