Complainant Sanjay Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.77,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation including Rs.5,000/- as legal expenses, in the interest of justice. 

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is working as officer in Bank of Baroda, Gurdaspur (Punjab) and is a God fearing person and have full faith in God. It was pleaded that opposite parties deals in the business of tourism affairs worldwide but instead of doing fair business opposite parties accumulating money by playing with the emotions of general public, which is against the business ethics. It was pleaded that complainant deposited INR 20,000/- on 7 Feb. 2013 and Rs.57,000/-on 18.3.2013 in ICICI account of opposite parties for booking of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra- 2013 by Coach as per instructions of opposite parties at Gurdaspur through NEFT. It was further pleaded that opposite parties received the above said amount by concealing the fact that Company of opposite parties will not conduct Yatra in 2013 as the same has been cancelled. Complainant number of times requested the opposite parties, personally visiting Delhi and also contacting on telephones/mobiles/by e:mails, for the refund of his hard earned money of Rs.77,000/- alongwith interest but they linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. It was also pleaded that opposite parties violated the rights of the consumer and it amounts to deficiency in service and is against the Consumer Protection Act. It was next pleaded that a legal notice 24.12.2014 was also issued to the opposite parties, but none bother, hence this complaint.       

3.       On 14.1.2015 name of opposite party no.1 has been deleted from the array of opposite parties on the statement made by the counsel for the complainant. Notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and upon notice Sh.Ravi Gupta Business Development Officer had appeared and case was adjourned for filing of reply on behalf of opposite party no.2 but after availing three opportunities opposite party no.2 failed to appear and did not file the reply and as such opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte on 28.7.2015.          

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
5. We have duly considered the pleadings of the complainant; heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

6.       We have anxiously considered the contentions of the complainant in the light of evidence on record and have found that the stand of the complainant is supported from the exparte evidence led by him in the form of affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein it is asserted that he is working as officer in Bank of Baroda and deposited INR 20,000/- on 7 Feb. 2013 and Rs.57,000/- on 18.3.2013 in ICICI account of opposite parties. To prove this fact complainant has placed on record transactions inquiry which is Ex.C7 and has also placed on record invoice Ex.C5.  

7. From the evidential part, it is proved that the complainant time and again approached OP for the refund of the above said amount of Rs.77,000/- but was unnecessarily harassed by OP which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Name of opposite party no.1 has been deleted from the array of the opposite parties on the statement of the counsel for the complainant. The OP No.2 has appeared but it failed to file the reply and also failed to satisfy the complainant and did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or they have nothing to say in the matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed. OP No.2 is found deficient in providing the services to the complainant. Hence, we partly allow the present complaint  and order the OP No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.77,000/- deposited by the complainant and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- and also Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of orders.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                                        President.                                                                                      

ANNOUNCED:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

SEPT. 23, 2015                                                            Member.

*YP*