1) Heard the argument of Shri Vilas B. Sandhan-Advocate for the Complainants on the point of admission. Perused the Complaint and documents filed on record by the Complainants.
2) After perusing the Complaint and documents along with Complaint, it is evident that the Complainants have filed this Complaint against the Opponents under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for deficiency in service. As per the allegation of the Complainants, they have paid Rs.25,000/- to the Opponents for arranging the tour at Kerala and the Opponents has given promise and assurance to provide all facilities and services. At the time of tour, the Complainants faced a bus accident at Peruvanthanamin Idukki district. Due to this, 20 passengers were injured and the Complainants and their sons also sustained injuries. At that time, the Opponents did not assist the Complainants and also not provide any medical assistance. Due to above accidental injuries, the Complainants spent Rs.31,67,000/- for medical treatment, medicines and traveling.
3) The Complainants demanding Rs.31,67,000/- for hospital bills, Rs.10,00,000/- for damages and Rs.5,00,000/- for cost of the proceeding.
4) The Complainants filed xerox copy of Pamplet of Balaji Tours and Travels, train tickets of Complainants, FIR dated 20/01/2023, medical bills, medicine bills, flights and train tickets, legal notice sent by the Complainants through advocate.
5) After Perusal of all documents filed by the Complainants on record, it is revealed that the Complainants is not filed any receipt issued by the Opponents which supports the contention of the Complainants that they have paid Rs.25,000/- as consideration for service. It is also revealed that the Complainants have not filed any agreement or undertaking which executed by the Opponents in respect of providing any service. The Complainants also not filed any documents on record which supports the contention of Complainants that the Opponents running business of tours and travels under the name of M/s. Balaji Group. The Pamplet filed by the Complainants on record is not sufficient proof to prove that the Opponents are service provider.
6) As per Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ‘Consumer’ means any person who-
“hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised”
Now, considering the above definition of consumer, the Opponents have not received consideration and also not promised any service to the Complainants. No any written agreement executed between the Complainants and the Opponents in respect of tours services. Therefore, it is evident that the Complainants are not a ‘Consumer’ and the Opponents are not a service provider. Hence, we came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Complainants does not come under the purview of Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the transaction between the Complainants and the Opponents is not within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complaint is not fit for admission. Therefore, under Section 36 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we proceed to pass the following order.
FINAL ORDER
- Consumer Complaint No. CC/531/2023 stands rejected at stage of admission itself.
- No order as to costs.
- Copy of this order be sent to the Complainants free of costs.
