Order No.11

Date-28/08/2018.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Aggrieved complainant’s case in short is that he had noticed an advertisement in Ananda Bazar Patrika regarding tour of Singapore which would be conducted by M/s. Dishari Holidays Limited, OP-1. Complainant booked a package tour in Singapore as mentioned “ Explore Singapore “ which was scheduled to be 11.02.2017 onwards in the name of  Sri Dipak Ranjan Bose and his Wife Smt Papia Bose and deposited full amount of Rs.95,186.00 in three instalments on 14.07.2016, 08.11.2016 and 17.12.2016 to M/s. Dishari Holidays Limited, OP-1, and the OP-1 on 02.02.2017 through an e-mail had postponed the proposed tour to Singapore  at their own will and informed about the reschedule date of journey between  September, 2017  along with a provision to get back the deposited amount with 4 percent interest  The OP-1 in a letter expressed  their inability to conduct the said tour and offered  to accept a cheque on Axis Bank bearing No.037535 dated 10.06.2017 amounting to Rs.98,994.00.  The OP-1 further in a letter dated 03.06.2017 requested the Complainant to return the said cheque as the Axis Bank A/c became dormant and to receive a cheque on HDFC Bank bearing cheque No.001222 dated 10.06.2017 amounting to Rs.98,994.00 and this cheque was not cleared  due to insufficient  fund. The Complainant through  e-mail dated 05.06.2017 prayed before the OP-1 to deposit the amount to his Bank A/c at State Bank of India within 22.06.2017. The Complainant also told that he is a patient of hypertension and diabetes and he was badly facing physical harassment and mental agony due to inaction through e-mail dated 07.07.2017, asked the OP to refund his hard earned money. The OP further proposed for the next tour at Thailand/ Andaman, the Complainant refused and prayed for refund of money.

The Complainant finding no other way in spite of his repeated persuasion, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievances. Hence, this case.

            The OPs did not turn up and no WV has been filed.

Points for Discussion

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP;
2. Whether the OP is deficient in rendering promised service to the complainant;
3. Whether the complainant deserves relief.

Decision with Reasons

1. We have perused copies of Booking Receipt dated 14 July, 2016, internet copy of policies and T&C, mail dated 08Nov, 2016 of

2) It is very clear that the complainant being duped through Advertisement booked the tour against full payment of Rs.95,186/ in three phases. The date of journey was also mentioned as 11 Feb, 2017.In the Affidavit of the aggrieved complainant identified by the representative of the VCO, the case no. has been erroneously stated to be CC/80/2018. Such mistake should not have been occurred.

3) But on 02-02-2017, just after one and half month of receiving full amount for the tour, OP sent letter cancelling the tour due to various reasons including shortage of fund and sent a postdated cheque (dated 10-06-2017) for Rs.98994/- allowing a whimsical amount of interest of Rs.3808/- only.

4)      Ironically, by a next letter, OP-2 intimated of the dormant position of OP’s account in the Axis Bank. Did OP-2 not know of such dormant position before issuing the Axis Bank cheque? It is further irony that the OP-2’s second cheque of HDFC Bank also got bounced by Bandhan Bank, which furthered complainant’s physical harassment andmental agony.

5Now-a-days, this has been the practice of the said OP to receive first the full amount for tour and then cancel the tour on ground of fund crisis and other pleas. In this case, the complainant has been subjected to much more harassment, agony and frustration.

We cannot understand how the question of fund crisis arises when OP realizes full amounts beforehand from each prospective tourist?

This is a parallel shadow business such practice is quite unfair too.

6) More unfair is the dishonor of the cheque due to “fund insufficient” as commented by Bandhan Bank.  It is to be noted that the cheques were dated 10th Jun, 2017 i.e. after about 6 months from the date of final payment.  In spite of such long gap of dates, the cheque got dishonoured.

2. The OP-2 appears to be in the practice of making expenses in making Ad in daily Newspapers to dupe and attract potential tourists who come to OP-2, make payments and get cheated.
3. Running from pillar to post, the complainant helplessly wrote letter on stated dates to OPs requesting foe return of the paid up money for the cancelled tour but the OP-2, in particular, intentionally kept silent. The complainant was compelled to take shelter to the NGO in question, now contesting on behalf of the aggrieved complainant.
4. It remains the fact that the aggrieved complainant paid consideration (Rs.95186/-) in expectation of getting the service of tour from the OPs.  So, the aggrieved complainant is a consumer under the OPs, in terms of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The OPs in spite of receiving full consideration money did not render promised services to the aggrieved complainant.

So, OPsare drastically deficient in terms of Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

Thus the aggrieved complainant deserves relief.He faced embarrassing situation among the acquaintances also.

5. Apart from deficiency in service, the OPs misrepresented in the Advertisement to pull potential tourists only to adopt unfair trade practices by first duping them and then extracting money by false pleas and promises.  So, the OPs suffer from unfair trade practices as defined u/s. 2(1)(r) of the Act.
6. In spite of publicity through Daily Newspaper, the OPs failed to attend proceedings.  No written version has been filed by the OP as well.  The Evidence-On-Affidavit by the complainant also remained unchallenged.  This indicates OPs have nothing to say against the charges levelled against them by the aggrieved complainant.

It is the settled principle that the party in spite of getting opportunity to defend his case, does not take the opportunity, it is on the default side and its leverage goes to the other side (here to the complainant).

In the circumstances of what have been analytically discussed above, we are constrained to pass –

ORDER

             That the complaint be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Biplab Mondal, in terms of Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986;

            That the OPs, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Biplab Mondal are directed to refund Rs.95186./- with interest of 8 percent from 17-12-2016 till date of actual payment, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment, mental agony and loss of dignity of complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost, to the aggrieved, complainant, Dipak Ranjan Bose, within 30 days from the date of this order;

            That the OPs, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Biplab Mondal are directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade u/s.14(1)(hb) of the Act with the Forum under Legal Aids Account, within 30 days from the date of this order.

            That non-compliance of above orders by the OPs represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Biplab Mondal within the stipulated time, will entitle the aggrieved complainant to put the order into execution in terms of Section 27 of the Act ibid.

            Let copy of the order be handed over to the parties when applied for.