The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the complainants to assail the Order No. 02 dated 23rd August, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - I (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 253 of 2017 whereby the complaint lodged by the appellants under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed in limine.
The appellants herein being complainants lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that the appellant no. 1 booked vehicles for marriage purpose of his son i.e. appellant no. 2 as groom and his companions scheduled on 09.12.2016 and he booked a ‘Corolla Altis’ car and a ‘Traveler-27’ seated bus from the respondent Travel Agency and the vehicles were scheduled to report at Airport Gate No. 1 in order to reach the destination at Diamond Harbour where the marriage of appellant no. 2 was scheduled to perform at 7:30 p.m. The appellant has paid Rs. 13,000/- as advance amount for booking of those two cars. However, on the date though ‘Corolla Altis’ reached in time but the ‘Traveler Bus’ arrived at the reporting point in or around 3:45 p.m. for which the appellants and other family members faced lot of troubles to reach the destination within the scheduled time of marriage. In spite of the deficiencies on the part of the opposite travel agency, they raised a bill of another sum of Rs. 8,465/-. The appellants through their Advocate requested the respondent travel agency to pay back the excess amount of Rs. 5,655/-. After receipt of the said notice the respondent verbally admitted their fault and agreed to refund an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for final settlement but ultimately the dispute has not been resolved. Hence, the appellants approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiencies in services on the part of respondent with prayer for several reliefs including – refund of excess amount of Rs. 5,655/-, Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
However, at the time of admission hearing, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint with an observation that the respondent already expressed their desire to refund the money as well as the compensation but the complaint has been lodged to have more compensation.
Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the Ld. District Forum should not have dismissed the complaint summarily when it is quite apparent that the appellants are ‘consumers’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and further when the respondent has admitted its deficiencies for not providing proper services to the appellants. Moreover, till now no amount has been paid by the respondent and as such the impugned order should be set aside.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that they are ready and willing to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- as full and final settlement but as the appellants are not ready to accept the same the settlement could not be arrived at.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it become quite clear that the appellants hired the services of the respondent travel agency on account of marriage ceremony of appellant no. 2 scheduled to held on 09.12.2016 at 7:30 p.m. at Diamond Harbour for which they have paid an advance amount of Rs. 13,000/- to the respondent travel agency. The communications available with the record indicate that the respondent travel agency has admitted their fault. Therefore, the only question left for consideration as to the amount of compensation to be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum should not have dismissed the complaint summarily, particularly, when no amount has yet been paid by the respondent travel agency in favour of the appellants. In order to show their bonafide, the respondents could have refunded money by a Demand Draft/Pay Order in favour of the appellants but when the said method has not been adhered to, I think the Ld. District Forum should not have dismissed the complaint. In other words, when there was ground for proceeding against the respondent/opposite party, the Ld. District Forum should have issued notice upon the respondent/opposite party and to adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The Order No. 02 dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/257/2017 is hereby set aside. Since the opposite party has already appeared, the parties are direction to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 03.08.2018 positively and on that date the opposite party must file written version in accordance with the direction of Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (1) CPR 123 [New India Assurance Company Ltd. – vs. – Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.].
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – I for information.
