Haryana

Panchkula

CC/96A/2019

MR.SANDEEP LAKHERA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TRAVELANGERS. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA & SAPNA VASEDEVA.

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

Sh. Sandeep Lakhera, R/o House No.1320, Sector-25, Panchkula-134109.

                                                                    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                          

1.     M/s Travelangers, SCO 354, Sector-9, Panchkula-134109 through its Owner.

2.     M/s Travelangers, SCO 354, Sector-9, Panchkula-134109 through Sh. Gaurav Goyal, Executive.

3.     Sh. Gaurav Goyal, 254, Sector-15, Panchkula-134109

4.     Ms. Jyoti, Executive, M/s Travelangers, SCO-354, Sector-9,       Panchkula - 134109       

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                         Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                         Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

For the Parties:   Sh. Pankaj Chandgotia, Advocate for the complainant.  

                        Sh. Asheem Jain, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 29.3.2019.

                        OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated 14.1.2020.

                        Sh.Gaurav Arora, Advocate for OP No.4.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint are that the complainant, on 07.09.2018, approached the OPs firm i.e. “Travelangers”, which deals in providing services related to holidays and travels in India and aboard. The complainant wanted a complete holiday package for Indonesia(Bali) from 24.02.19 to 03.03.2019 for two couples for the purpose of their Honeymoon. It is stated that the OPs No.2 to 4, Sh.Gaurav Goyal and Ms.Jyoti, represented that they could arrange a confirmed holiday package for the said dates for a total sum of Rs.2,65,000/- for two couples. The complainant agreed to the said package. The OP No.2 demanded that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- would have to be paid in advance to enable them to arrange the package and  the said amount be given to him in cash or be transferred  to his personal account, as the said money was to be given to the Airlines  for taking confirmed tickets for the desired dates. He (the OP No.2) further cautioned the complainant not to make a cheque payment or electronic payment into the firm’s account, as the tickets were to be booked in advance and firm’s authorized signatory was not available due to which  the amount could not be transferred by the firm to the Airlines. As per the OP’s demands, the complainant having no alternative, had to agree to make the payment in the manner as the OP’s demanded. It is averred that the complainant believing the version of Ops No.2 & 3 to be correct paid the payment of Rs.13,000/- on 07.09.2018 in cash and he further transferred a total sum of Rs.1,37,000/- in the account number provided by OP No.3 through google pay on the various dates. It is stated that the OP’s informed the complainant that the package had been finalized and sent the confirmation of Air Tickets, booked in the name of the complainant and three others with booking reference AO Ref. AO 181897871, Airlines Reference KLSWLO, CRS Reference KLSVLX for Bali(Indonesia) dated 24.02.2018 to 03.03.2019. It is stated that the complainant got shocked when he checked the status of the tickets as provided to him, with the Airlines because the said tickets were found to be false and invalid. Upon being confronted, in the third week of December, 2018 the OPs admitted that the said tickets were bogus and promised to provide the confirmed bookings of all services, as per their promised Honeymoon package within some days and latest by 03.01.2019. It is stated that the Ops did not send any air tickets or the hotel booking even after receiving the amount in advance. It is stated that the complainant requested the OPs to send him the air tickets and hotel booking as the Honeymoon date was approaching nearer but to no avail. This caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and all his hopes for a memorable honeymoon shattered for no fault of his. It is stated that the complainant waited for the delivery of the air tickets and hotel for more than 4 months but the OPs did not respond and ultimately, a legal notice was sent to them on 21.01.2019, which also failed to yield any positive results. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 4 appeared through counsel and filed the separate written statements contesting the complaint almost on similar and identical lines and, so, to avoid repetition, the averments made by OP No.1 in its written statement are taken up. The OP NO.1 has raised preliminary objection that the complainant does not fall under the category of the consumer as he neither met the OP No.1 nor its representative; the complainant had never deposited or paid any amount in the account of OP No.1 or its partners for the alleged booking made by him; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts; no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant.

                On merits, it is submitted that the OP No.1 used to provide the services related to holiday package and travel in India and aboard. It is denied that the complainant had approached the OPs on 07.09.2018 for availing the holiday package for Indonesia(Bali) from 24.02.2019 to 03.03.2019 for two couples for their honeymoon. It is denied that the complainant had approached the OPs No.2 to 4 for the booking as alleged. It is wrong to allege that the Ops No.2 & 3 had represented on behalf of the OP No.1 regarding the arrangement of any confirmed holiday package and asked the complainant for some advance amount to be paid in cash or transferred in the personal account of OP No.3 for confirming the Airline Tickets. It is wrong that the complainant had deposited the money for the alleged booking in the account of the OP No.1 or its partners; as such, the question of alleged confirmed booking, which was allegedly made by the OP No.1 does not arise at all. It is submitted that the complainant being working with the OYO Co., which provides the booking for the Hotels, used to visit the office of OP No.1 for taking of booking of different consumers and thus, he was having full knowledge regarding the fact that if any person makes the booking of any travel package through some firm, then the money for the said package was to be transferred in the account of that firm and not into the account of any individual; So now, the complainant in collusion with OP no.3 is trying to extract the easy money from the OP No.1 by concocting a false and frivolous story. It is submitted that the copy of the confirmation voucher of air tickets, attached with the complaint, is totally forged and fabricated documents, which was prepared with the intention to cheat the OP No.1 and to extract the easy money by blackmailing. Rest of the allegations alleged by the complainant has been denied and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 4 and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 29.03.2019.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.3 through office peon, who had reported that he had went to the House No.254, Sector-15, Panchkula where Smt. Kavita Goyal, mother of OP No.3, met him and stated that she was not aware about his son’s whereabouts. Thereafter, the OP No.3 was summoned through publication but he did not appear despite publication in Panchkula Bhaskar on 04.12.2019; hence, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 14.01.2020.

3.The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the OP No.1 as well as did not submit their evidence in shape of affidavit along with documents etc. despite availing several opportunities; accordingly, their evidence were closed by the Commission on 02.09.2021.

4.We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant, OP No.1 as well as OP No.4 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the complainant  & OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

5.During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant, reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant and contended that the OP No.3, Sh.Gaurav Goyal, representing himself as an executive on behalf of the M/s Travelangers(OP No.1), had got deposited a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- from the complainant in his google pay account and took a sum of Rs.13,000/- in cash. It is contended that the OP No.3 had promised to send the air tickets for four persons, for Indonesia(Bali), from 24.02.2019 to 03.03.2019 and in this regard, sent a confirmation vouchers (Annexure C-2(colly)), which was, ultimately, found fake and bogus. It is contended that the complainant had suffered the loss due to the negligent and deficient services of Ops and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the OP No.1 & 4 have contested the complaint on similar grounds. The learned counsels for OP No.1 as well as OP No.4 have refuted the allegations as leveled by the complainant qua the payment of sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to OP No.1 in lieu of air tickets and hotel package for Indonesia(Bali) w.e.f. 24.02.2019 to 03.03.2019. Both the learned counsels have reiterated the averments as made in the written statement as also in the written submissions, which are summarized as under:-

1. That no amount as alleged by the complainant was deposited in the account of M/s Travelangers(OP No.1). The learned counsels argued that the complainant, being connected with the OYO Co. which provides the booking for the hotels, used to visit the office of OP No.1 for taking the booking of different customers and thus, he was having full knowledge regarding the fact that if any person makes the booking of any package through some firm, then the money for the package was to be transferred into the account of that firm and not in the account of any individual.
2. That the complainant had never approached the OP no.1 or its representative for the alleged holiday package.
3. That the complainant, in collusion with OP no.3(Sh. Gaurav Goyal) is trying to extract the money by concocting a false and frivolous story.
4. That an FIR was lodged by the complainant against OP No.3 Sh. Gaurav Goyal, wherein, during investigation by the police, the OP No.1 as well as OP No.4 were found innocent; thus, it is prayed that the complaint being frivolous, baseless and meritless is liable to be dismissed.

7.The payment of sum of Rs.1,37,000/- through google pay in the account of OPs No.2 & 3 i.e. Sh. Gaurav Goyal is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the confirmation vouchers (Annexure C-2(colly)) qua air tickets and bookings as provided by OPs No.2 & 3 to the complainant was found fake and bogus.

8.The OP No.1 in its defence has mainly taken the plea that the said sum of Rs.1,37,000/- was not depositedin firm’s account and that the complainant had never contacted the OP No.1 or its representative qua the booking of the air tickets and hotels for two couple from 24.02.2019 to 03.03.2019 in Indonesia(Bali). The OP No.1 have also taken the plea that the complainant and OP No.3 being in collusion with each other, are trying to extract the money from it.

9.The aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsels for the OP No.1 as well as OP No.4 are tenable. We have perused the email communication(Annexure C-2) between the complainant and the OPs No.2 & 3 on 01.11.2018. As per said email dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure C-2), thecomplainant had made the communication with Sh.Gaurav Goyal(OP No.3) in connection with taking of air tickets/ hotels bookings for 4 persons for Indonesia(Bali). The said email was sent by the complainant to OP No.3 at his email address i.e.

          Sandeep Lakhera  

Cc:Jyoti Rani 

Dear Gaurav,

This is in reference to the Bali ticket for the guest named:

1. Sandeep Lakhera
2. Neeta Bhandri
3. Satnam Singh Hundal
4. Divya Jyoti

The Amount of Rs.60,000 has been deposited.

Kindly share the vouchers for the same.

Looking forward to the confirmation

OYO/Sandeep Lakhera

ASM l Corporate Sales

+919855986673

10.A bare perusal of above email communication between the complainant and the OPs No.2 & 3 makes it clear beyond any doubt in any manner that the OP No.3 had used the name of OP No.1 i.e. with its address i.e. SCO-354, Sector-9, Panchkula. Further, the written voucher(Annexure C-2(colly)) qua the air tickets of four persons from New Delhi to Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Lumpur to Bali and back has been found having the name of OP No.1 with its address i.e. TravalangersSCO-354, Sector-9, Panchkula. On the top of said written air ticket voucher(Annexure C-2(colly)), the name of OP No.1 i.e. Travelangers with its address, contact no.8648000090, toll free no.18001236383 is found. Further, the printout of making the payment of sum of Rs.1,37,000/- by the complainant to OP No.3 through google pay shows the name of OP No.1 i.e. Bali package travelangers.

11.From the above stated factual position, it is abundantly clear that Sh. Gaurav Goyal had acted as representative on behalf of the OP No.1, while accepting the payment of sum of Rs.1,37,000/- through google pay from the complainant and issuing the written air travel vouchers(Annexure C-2(colly)). There is not even an iota of doubt qua the fact that the OP No.1 had, by his own act, conduct and acquiescence had allowed Sh.Gaurav Goyal(OP No.3) to act and work as his representative. Even otherwise, the OP No.1 has nowhere denied even in its entire written statement that Sh.Gaurav Goyal(OP NO.3) was its authorized executive to deal financially with the customers. Infact, the OPs No.2 & 3 had been managing the daily affairs of the OP No.1 and he was clothed with this responsibility by OP No.1, while sitting in the office of the OP No.1.

12.Moreover, the OP No.1 as well as OP No.4 have not controverted or rebutted the assertions and contentions of the complainant by adducing some documentary evidence in their favour. The OP no.1 and OP No.4 did not submit any documentary evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents etc. despite availing several opportunities including the last one and accordingly, the opportunity to submit their evidence was closed by the Commission on 02.09.2021. In the absence of any evidence in support of the contentions made by OP No.1 its written statement, no value can be attached to its defence version. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

13.Further, the plea  taken by the OP No.1 that it was found innocent by the police during its investigation in the FIR lodged by the complainant is liable to be rejected being devoid of any force and substance therein as the Civil and Criminal Proceedings are quite distinguish and separate from each other.

14.In the light of discussion made above, we have reached at irresistible conclusion that the OPs No.1 to 3 were deficient while rendering services to the complainant, for which, they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.4 as no deficiency has been found against her.

15.Coming to relief, it is found that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- from his google pay account. The printouts qua making of payment amounting to Rs.1,37,000/- are available on record as Annexure C-1 collectively. However, no proof has been found qua the alleged payment of Rs.13,000/- made by the complainant in cash. Therefore, the prayer of the complainant seeking the refund of Rs.13,000/- which was  allegedly  paid by him in cash is declined.

16.As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 to 3:-

1. To refund/pay a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum(simple interest) w.e.f. the respective date of receipts(Annexure C-1 collectively) till its realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.

17The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 30.11.2023

        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav     Dr.Sushma Garg         Satpal

                Member                     Member                   President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                 Satpal                                                                                       President

CC.96 of 2019

Present:             Sh. Pankaj Chandgotia, Advocate for the complainant. 

                        Sh. Asheem Jain, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 29.3.2019.

                        OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated 14.1.2020.

                        Sh.Gaurav Arora, Advocate for OP No.4.

                       Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 30.11.2023 for orders.

Dt.21.11.2023

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

Present:             Sh. Pankaj Chandgotia, Advocate for the complainant. 

                        Sh. Asheem Jain, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 29.3.2019.

                        OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated 14.1.2020.

                        Sh.Gaurav Arora, Advocate for OP No.4.

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby dismissed against OP No.4 and is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 to 3 with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 30.11.2023

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President