PER: HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

      The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of complainants to assail the final order/judgment being order No. 21 dated 20.03.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit- II (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer complaint No. 311 of 2016. By the impugned order, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the appellant with following directions:

      “That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest, in part, against the Opposite Parties in terms of Section 13 (2)(b)(i) of C.P. Act, 1986;

       That the Opposite Parties are directed to jointly and severally refund Rs. 102955/- to each of the complainants with 8% interest (to compensate financial loss) on the respective amounts for the period from 02.12.2015 till date of actual payment, Rs. 10000/- to each complainant as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act, a litigation cost of Rs. 12000/- and the adjournment cost of Rs. 2000/- as  ordered on 31.01.2018, within 30 days from the date of this order;

       That the Opposite Parties are further directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 60000/- under Section 14(1) (hb) for unfair trade, 50% of which shall be paid to the complainants and the rest to be deposited with this Forum to maintain legal aid account, within 30 days from the date of this order......”

      The appellants herein being complainants lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that in order to visit Cambodia- Indonesia for a trip between the period 16.11.2005 and 26.11.2005 they came in contact with “News Travel Agency” (respondent No. 1) who organised and/or conduct tours for abroad. For the entire tour programme including tickets and for providing all others benefits, the Opposite Parties/respondents asked an amount of Rs. 1,02,955/- per head for 9 nights and 10 days tour. On 15.11.2015 at about 9.50 P.M the complainants went to the Air Port for checking to the Air Asia Flight No. A.K.-62 (CCU-KUL) which was proposed to depart N.S.C. Bose Airport at 05:00 A.M. on 16.11.2015. The moment Air Asia Counter of the Airport was contacted, the personnel therein asked the complainants to produce Visa in Malaysia i.e. Malaysia Visa as precondition to proceed for security check which was not possible to produce. The Air Asia Staff on duty immediately contacted to the News Travel Agency over phone but the Travel Agency confirmed that they were not aware of such procedure or Laws and as a result the tickets were cancelled. The development was immediately brought to the notice of the News Travel Agency via e-mail. The complainants thereafter, started writing letters requesting to refund their money but all went in vain. Hence, the appellant approach the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) An order directing the opposite parties to refund every complainant’s entire tour money of Rs. 102955/- to each of the complainant with interest @ 7% since the date of scheduled trip i.e. 16.11.2005 till payment of totalling to Rs. 6,17,730/- for six complainants alongwith interest; (b) An Award of Compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) to each of the complainant; (c) An appropriate order of cancellation of license to opposite parties as travel agent and to restrain the opposite parties to conduct any tour or further tour in future with immediate effect; (d) Litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- etc.

       The respondents being Opposite Parties by filing a written version have stated that they were in continuous transaction regarding purchase of ticket with one ‘Akbar Travel’. On 13.07.2015 the said travels send a detailed account of the total chargeable fair inclusive of baggage charges to OP No. 1. On a perusal of the rate chart send by an e-mail, it could not be ascertained by OP No. 1 that any transit Visa was required for entry and exit through Malaysia, more particularly, Kualalumpur. The said Akbar Travel with whom the OP No. 1 is having a long terms relationship had never informed the OP No. 1 of such requirement. In good faith the OP No. 1 was made to understand that no transit Visa for passage through Kualalumpur was required to reach Siem Reap, as such the OP No. 1 did not have the knowledge that it was a precondition that transit Visa was required to travel through Kualalumpur. The OP No. 1 was fully dependent upon Akbar Travel as would be necessary for the entire point to point journey. The Opposite Parties have also stated that after purchase all the ticket of the complainants and during booking tickets of other customers, the OP No. 1 had made several communications with Akbar Travel but it was never communicated to OP No.  1 by Akbar Travels regarding the said requirement of said transit Visa (Malaysia) for the tour of the complainants and as such the OP No. 1 have no knowledge and idea of the said requirement at any point of time. The Opposite Parties have stated that as a tour operator OP No. 1 cannot be held responsible for the responsibility and liability of such omission was/is borne by Akbar Travels or Air Asia who were due to bound to inform the tour operator i.e. OP No. 1 about the said mandatory requirement. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed.

        After assessing the materials on record  the Ld. District Forum by impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions, as indicated above. However, being dissatisfied with the said order, the complaints have come up in this Commission with the instant appeal.

       Mr. Saikat Mali, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are senior citizens and considering the harassment and mental agony suffered by them the compensation awarded at Rs. 10,000/- to each complainant appears to be less and as such the impugned order is required to be modified, more particularly when the appellants had claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

      Per contra, Ms. Antara Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate for respondent No. 1 has contended that the Ld. District Forum had no occasion to award Rs. 60,000/- under the head ‘unfair trade practice’ when there is no averment in the petition of complaint or any prayer in the prayer clause of petition of complaint to that effect. She has also contended that when the order of refund of Rs. 1,02,955/- has been made to each of the appellants along with an interest @ 8% p.a. there was hardly any reason to impose compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each separately. She has further urged that the respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order will prefer an appeal.

       We have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.

        In a catena of decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission have observed that when the amount paid by a party is refunded with interest to compensate financial loss, there is no reason to impose any amount as compensation separately. In the case before hand, the Ld. District Forum has awarded refund of amount paid by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,02,955/- to each of the appellants along with interest thereon @ 8% p.a. and as such there was no reason for imposition of Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellants separately as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony.

        In a decision reported in (2015 ) 1 SCC 429 (General Motor (India) Pvt. Ltd. –vs- Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat and Anr.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that though in deciding a consumer dispute ,a liberal approach should be taken yet fair procedure being the hallmark of natural justice, no relief should be granted unless there is a claim to that effect. Evidently, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- but did not claim any amount whatsoever under the head ‘unfair trade practice’. In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum should not have awarded the amount of Rs. 60,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice by the respondents. However, as the respondents did not prefer any appeal, we restrain ourselves from making any further observations in this regard.

       Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest against respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the rest. However, there will be no order as to costs.

        The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

      The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II for information.