Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that they with an intention to avail of LTC of the Central Government talked with the op for arrangement of a tour at Andaman and for that purpose they informed the op a tour operator on 26.06.2012.  But they stated that they are travelling agent and they cannot book tickets for journey, they may organize and asset the complainant to obtain passage tickets through authorized travelling agents and as per their case Government of India maintains a register of such authorized agents only through which the passage tickets of its employees enjoying LTC  are to book their passage tickets and on 27.06.2012 the complainants were not aware of the revised rules of LTC nor the list of authorized travelling agents for booking tickets for tour to Andaman.  So, the complainants talked with op regarding tour programme in Andaman on reaching there, and a token money amounting to Rs.500/- for the tour conducting charges in the Andamans by the ops was paid to the ops by the complainant for which receipt was granted and tour period was from 11.12.2012 to 17.12.2012 and op issued a receipt in respect of payment of Rs. 500/- vide their receipt No. 54 dated 27.06.2012 only.  But any other contract was made in between the complainants and the ops.

          But peculiarities is that the op no.2 informed over telephone that the complainant air ticket for journey from Kolkata to Port Blaire by Air on the said probable date on 17.12.2012 had been booked through an authorized travelling agent but complainant refused to accept it because the said travelling agent is not authorized by the Central Government of India.  Thereafter complainant after some days, came to learn that op sent notice to the Office of Kolkata Doordarshan Kendra, Golf Green through an Advocate and demanded Rs.29,500/- vide letter dated 26.07.2012 for cancellation charges of air ticket for journey from Kolkata to Port Blaire and after hearing the above matter they were perplexed and annoyed and thereafter on 17.08.2012 complainant served a letter to the op’s Ld. Lawyer intimating the entire fact and also alleged that the entire claim of the op is false and fabricated and for such misconduct of the op, complainants have suffered much and in the circumstances, complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.500/- and also prayed for compensation for false claim of Rs.29,500/-.

          Whereas op by filing the written statement submitted that complainant supplied the details of the members who shall have to book under LTC for the journey to Andaman for the above period and after getting their assurance and consent air tickets were purchased from the agent Raj Yatayat Pvt Ltd., Karnani Estate, 5^th Floor, Suit No.205, 209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017.  Complainants requested the op to book/reserve 15 air tickets for the complainant’s and considering the status of the complainants and relying upon the assurance of the complainants, op booked the same and after confirmation the op no.2 requested the complainants for payment of the said price of the air tickets.  But complainants refused to make the payments of the same and on the other hand instructed to cancel all air tickets and they also agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- for cancellation charge as per terms of the rules of flight charges to the op no.2.  But complainant never stated in respect of LTC or about authorized travelling agent of the Central Government of India etc and in fact the complainant booked the service of the op for that purpose which would be evident from the fact that they supplied the details of their family members who shall have to visit Andaman and as per their details the 15 air tickets were purchased and thereafter cancelled as per complainant’s advise and so op is entitled to get the cancellation charge what he had already spent as per advice and request and booking of the said journey at Andaman.

          But the complainant’s entire allegation in the complaint is false and fabricated and only to avoid payment of cancellation charges of Rs.29,500/- they had taken false plea for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                               Decision with reasons

          After hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the status of the op in this case including the status of the complainant, it is clear that complainant paid Rs.500/- to op Andaman Super towards travelling at Andaman during the period 11.12.2012 to 17.12.2012 that was paid on 27.06.2012 and after considering the said receipt it is found that there was no such detail of the persons and their age, sex, relation etc.  At the same time it is found from the receipt Annexure-A that Rs.500/- was received towards tour but not for fare (Air/Ship/Rail).  So, apparently considering the story of the complaint and defence as taken by the op, it is found that op’s version is that he took Rs.500/- for booking air ticket etc is not at all proved.  But it is proved that Andaman Super is a travelling agent and he runs such business for arrangement of the tour by the travelling agents and op is no doubt a travelling agent and fact remains that there was no total contract in between the complainant and op no.1 and only advance of Rs.500/- was received by the op only towards tour but not as part of total fare or air ticket/ship/rail. 

          When that is the fact, then it is clear that complainant only for purpose of their journey at Andaman within the period from 11.12.2012 to 17.12.2012 paid Rs.500/- but no contract was made on the basis of the receipt for purchasing air ticket or ticket shall be air or ship or rail and at the same time complainant did not supply the details of the parties’ names, age, sex etc on the basis of that receipt.  So, it is clear that the op’s  advanced story is that complainant requested him to purchase air ticket for their journey is completely baseless on the ground op has failed to produce any such contract in between the complainant and op for purchasing air ticket or the total fare of the air ticket or any other matter.

          But anyhow complainants have stated that they told the op that after receipt of the Central Government of India Notification regarding sanctioned Rules of LTC will talk which is found more believable in view of the fact they paid Rs.500/- on 27.06.2012 whereas their expected journey was dated 11.12.2012 to 17.12.2012.  Then invariably on the very date there was no scope on the part of the op to purchase air ticket for the complainants and if it had been done by the op that was completely against the money receipt dated 27.06.2012 and when op has also failed to produce any paper to show that there was a contract in between the complainant and op regarding purchase of air ticket or reservation and for that reason we can say without any hesitation that it was fault on the part of the op for purchasing some air tickets on the basis of the money receipt No.54 dated 27.06.2012.

          If we believe for the sake of the argument that op purchased it with the consent of the complainant, in this case it is the liability of the op to show that there was such a contract.  But no such contract is produced by the op and for which we can rely upon the statement of the complainant in this regard and particularly the single piece of material evidence that is money receipt dated 27.06.2012 issued by the op, wherefrom it is found that there was no contract in between the parties for directing the op for purchasing air ticket booking or reservation of any air ticket.

          Now on behalf of the op, the Ld. Lawyer of the op submitted that complaint is not maintainable when complainant is not a consumer on the ground that op is a link operators or sub operators and to that effect op referred one ruling reported in 2009 (3) CPR (114) NC.  But considering that judgements and the present fact and circumstances, we find that this ruling is not at all applicable in this case in view of the fact that in the said ruling the fact and fact of this case are different and in that case complainant himself was a sub operators of the operators.  So, the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed that complaint stating that sub operators or link operators are not consumer of those operators.  But in this case complainants are not sub operators or link operators of the op.  But they are direct the consumer of the ops in view of the fact that op is service providers several consumers that is travellers who intend to travel any tour.  So, op M/s Andaman Super is nothing but a service provider and consdering the present case it is found that complainants are consumer.  So we are convinced to hold that present complaint is maintainable in the eye of law and now the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the op that complainant is not at all legally consumer and is not tenable.  But on overall evaluation of the entire defence and the fact and also assessment of this vital document money receipt dated 27.06.2012 issued by the op we are convinced that complainant never entered into a contract with the op for purchasing air tickets.  They only advanced of Rs.500/- on 27.06.2012 for the purpose of getting his service so that they may tour within the period as specified at Andaman where the present op shall have to render all services for their journey.  But anyhow op for some purpose or for making some illegal profits purchased the tickets.

          But anyhow there was no such contract for which we are convinced to hold that under any circumstances, ops cannot any way claim any amount for cancellation charge from the complainant.  But fact remains that the complainant paid Rs.500/-.  But complainant did not cancel the tour programme in writing.  But fact remains they reported the matter that they are not able to travel on the ground Central Government of India prepared a list of authorized ticket booking agent and in the said list ops or ops agent and other are not listed for which they cancelled the same and it was informed within that month one is in the month of June, 2012.  Then question of any such contract for purchasing AIR Tickets by op as per contract Annexure-A is not visible.  But at best op may get Rs.250/- out of Rs.500/- as cancellation charge but not more than that.

          In the light of the above observation the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                            ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs.500/-.

          Op is not entitled to get any amount from the complainant except Rs.250/- as cancellation charge of the tour programme and as because Rs.500/- is in the hand of the op and op may deduct Rs.250/- and refund/return balance Rs.250/- to the complainant along with cost of the complaint within one month from the date of this order failing which for disobeyance and non compliance of the Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penalty  of Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages and same shall be deposited to State Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground ops had adopted an unfair trade practice which is apparently proved from the facts and materials.

          If op fails to comply the order and is found reluctant to comply in that case penal procedure shall be started against them and even they may be sent to jail for implementation of this order.