Punjab

Sangrur

CC/342/2019

Anil Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paras Holidays Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Keemat Rai Aggarwal

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 342

 Instituted on:   16.07.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     29.10.2021

 

Anil Kumar Gupta Advocate aged about 48 years son of Sh. Keemat Rai Aggarwal, resident of Prem Basti, Street No.1, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Paras Holidays Private Limited, 321-322, Gold Plaza Building, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Near Red Light, Delhi-110005 through its Manager/Director.

                        ….Opposite party 

 

For the complainant    : Shri Anil Kumar Adv.              

For the OP                : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

S.P. Sood, President.

1.             Complainant Shri Anil Kumar Gupta has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant contacted the OP online from Sangrur whereby the representative of the OP apprised that they are leading tour and travel operators in India and as per his assurance complainant was persuaded to buy a tour package for Europe.  In fact complainant was allured by the said representative of the OP and it was on his asking that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.69,000/- by way of two instalments comprising of Rs.20000/- and that of Rs.49,000/- on 29.5.2018.  Thereafter again the representative of the OP asked the complainant to deposit another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- so that the remaining formalities for making arrangements for overseas tour as chosen by the complainant alongwith his family could be made and the same was also transferred by the complainant through RTGS. This is how in all the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,69,000/- to the OP being the cost of their traveling and other incidental charges to Europe.  After this development officials of the OPs also shared details of this package with the complainant in response thereto. Latter also expressed their concurrence regarding the same. However before the needful could be done at the end of the OP the concerned representative of the OP who remained in touch with the complainant got transferred and thereafter none of his successor reverted back to the complainant at all.  This is how no further steps were taken up by any official of the OP and the tour in question could not be undertaken by the complainant despite all of them being eager for the same.  Even repeated requests put in by the complainant for arranging the tour package fell on deaf ears and even specific request put fourth by the complainant for arranging some other tour for some other destination was also not heeded.  To add insult to the injury, the OP even failed to refund the amount of Rs.1,69,000/- so deposited by the complainant which clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Faced with this situation, the complainant again tried to persuade the OP to refund the amount but when no such headway was made then the complainant was not having any other alternative except to file this complaint.

2.             After admission of this complaint, notice was issued to the OP, however nobody turned up on behalf of the OP despite registered cover being duly sent in favour of the OP were not received back and then this Commission ordered to proceed against the OP exparte and the complainant was called upon to produce his exparte evidence.

3.             During this process, the complainant tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 bank receipts of 29.5.2018, Ex.C-4 copy of bank statement, Ex.C-5 copy of voucher and Ex.C-6 screen shots of various mails sent by the complainant and also received by him, along with this another development which took place after institution of the complaint was also brought on record by the complainant through his supplementary sworn affidavit Ex.C-8 disclosing that out of the total sum of Rs.1,69,000/-, he has received a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- from the OP in the month of September, 2019 and then closed his evidence vide his statement in this regard.

4.             We have heard the contentions put fourth by the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the oral and documentary evidence with his valuable assistance.

5.             If we go through the contents of the complaint, we find that the complainant had planned to undertake Europe tour along with his family members and thus he came in contact with the representative of the OP who assured him to make necessary arrangements in this regard.  Having accepted entire terms and conditions of the package the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.1,69,000/- by way of three instalments on 29.5.2018 and 1.6.2018.  Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 which happens to be the counter foil as well as statement of Shri Anil Kumar clearly reveal that the above said amount was successfully transferred to the account of the OP.  Further other document relied upon by the complainant Ex.C-5 also brings out that all other formalities were asked to carry out  at the end of the complainant and the same were duly complied and despite the OP having received a sum of Rs.1,69,000/-the necessary arrangements for safe and smooth tour for complainant and his family was not arranged.  Since complainant has agreed to avail services rendered by the OP and has also acted upon the advice and directions of the OP to transfer the money and other things and despite all this, the needful was not done on the part of the OP and that failure clearly amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Though till 16.7.2019 when this complaint was instituted no money was refunded by the OP but it was only in the month of September, 2019 that not the entire sum of Rs.1,69,000/-, but instead an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- was returned which shows that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is still detained by the OP and virtually nothing was disclosed about this deduction to the complainant.  This entire oral and documentary evidence has remained unrebutted and unchallenged.  This is not the case that the OP was not given an opportunity to defend this matter rather it failed to appear in the court, despite sending the RC for effecting service upon it and only thereafter exparte proceedings were carried out.  So this entire oral and documentary evidence inspires confidence and there is no reason as to why the same could be discarded or disbelieved, as such finding conduct of the OP to be utterly deficient. So this complaint deserves to be allowed and hence the Manager/Director of the OP are directed to pay back a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the difference of the amount received from complainant and that the amount refunded alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days.  If the said amount is not paid by the OP in this period then the complainant will be entitled to recover the said amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its realization. 

6.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 29, 2021.

 

              (Sarita Garg)(Vinod Kumar Gulati)    (S.P. Sood)

                   Member              Member         President