Order No. 5  dt.  04/02/2020

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of travelling by visiting the places of interest contacted the o.p. and discussed regarding the journey, package and other facilities. The o.p. for providing such journey to the complainant the tour charge was fixed at Rs.70,000/- for visiting Leh - Ladakh. The date of journey was fixed on 20.5.19. The complainant along with her husband prepared themselves to avail the said tour programme conducted by o.p. The complainant made contact with o.p. over phone to ascertain the said tour but, o.p. cancelled the said tour without any prior intimation. The complainant was asked for providing an alternative tour for Srilanka and gave Indigo air tickets to the complainant. The complainant after making inquiry came to learn that the said tickets were vague and the complainant, thereafter, informed the o.p. but the o.p. did not give any response. The complainant, thereafter, lodged a complaint at Bowbazar P.S. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case making allegation against the o.p. of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Before filing of this case the complainant sent Lawyer’s notice dated 25/10/2019 to o.p. but no information was received from their end. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.70,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            In spite of receipt of notice, the o.p. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p.

            The complainant in order to prove this case did not file any separate evidence, but by filing a petition stated that the petition of complaint be treated as evidence. On perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- to o.p. for availing the said tour programme. The complainant before the journey made contact with o.p., but all on a sudden o.p. informed the complainant that the said tour has been cancelled. Subsequently, the complainant was provided with the air ticket for visiting Srilanka. The complainant after making enquiry came to learn that the said air ticket was also vague. The complainant brought the said fact to the notice of o.p. and demanded the refund of the amount of Rs.70,000/-, but o.p. neither refunded the amount nor gave any reply to the Lawyer’s letter sent to o.p. prior to filing of this case. The complainant has also filed some documents showing that she paid Rs.70,000/- to o.p. The complainant has also filed the tour programme provided by o.p. But due to the fault on the part of o.p. the said tour could not be held. Since the case of the complainant has remained unchallenged, therefore, we have no other alternative but to accept the contention of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact we hold that there is gross deficiency in service  on the part of the o.p. and accordingly, the complainant will be entitled to get the relief. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.371/2019 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.