C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 157 of 2011 dated 13.06.2013.

    

2. In the Complaint Case, it was stated that Respondents No.1 to 3 had booked a tour to Europe in February, 2006 with the Respondent No.4/Opposite Party No.1 on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- per head.Respondents No.1 to 3 started their journey from Kolkata on 26.06.2006 and the touring party reached Vienna on 27.06.2006. The Representative of the Respondent No.4 accompaniedRespondents No.1 to 3 upto Vienna and thereafter the tour management was handed over to Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 for completion of the rest of the tour. On 28.06.2006, the touring party under the leadership ofthe Petitioner reached Venice and on the next date when the team was on their way to Florence, the bus by which the touring party was travelling broke down and at that juncture it was announced, on behalf of Petitioner, that they were not in a position to complete the tour program because Respondent No.4 had not paid the tour cost to Petitioner. It was further stated that on repeated requests by Respondents No.1 to 3, the Petitioner agreed to accommodate Respondents No.1 to 3 and other tour party in a Hotel for the night of 29.06.2006 and arranged their return to Florence Station. From there, Respondents No.1 to 3 were asked to make their own arrangement. It is alleged that Petitioner informed Respondents No.1 to 3 that on making necessary payments directly to the Petitioner, they could continue with the Europe tour. Respondents No.1 to 3, therefore segregated themselves from the team and somehow managed their return to Kolkata on their own.A Complaint was, thus, filed by the Respondent No.1 to 3 alleging deficiency of service on the part ofthe Petitioner and Respondent No.4.

    

3. The Petitioner filed a Written Statement in which he contended that there was no privity of contract between him and Respondent No.1 to 3. It was further reiterated that no consideration money was paid directly to the Petitioner. It was further contended that Respondent No.4 engaged the services of the Petitioner on principal to principal basis as per the concluded contract between Respondent No.4 andthe Petitioner, through which the Petitioner offered the services as regard to the land arrangements such as hotel, transfers, reservations for sightseeing, food beverages etc.Hence, the Petitioner was not liable in any way towards the Respondent No.1 to 3.

4. District Forum vide order dated 03.02.2011, allowed the Complaint.The Respondent No.4 was directed to refund Rs. 87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred) to each of the complainant (taking into account that 1/6^th of the tour had been enjoyed) within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. He was also directed to pay a compensation of 1,00,000/- (Rupeesone lakh) to each of the complainant towards harassment and mental agony and a litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to each of the complainant within the period specified hereinabove.The Petitioner was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to each of the complainanttowards harassment and mental agony within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. Respondent No.5 was directed to issue no-objection certificate in favour of Emirates within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. If Respondent No.4 andthe Petitioner failed to pay the amounts ordered, they would carry an interest of 10% p.a. till full realization.

    

5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 filed separate Appeals before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 13.06.2013, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4. It was ordered that both the Appeals bearing Nos. FA/157/2011 and FA/217/2011 stand dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned order, thus, stood confirmed.

    

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondents. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record. Both the Fora have rightly mentioned in their order that the tour package should be considered as a whole and not in part. The foreign tour conducted by the Respondent No.4 was nothing but a Joint Venture between Respondent No.4 and Petitioner. Respondent No.1 to 3 had duly paid entire money for the tour.Having taken due consideration money the organisers of the tour were fully responsible for the successful completion of the tour. On the contrary, they irresponsibly shook off their responsibility midway, leaving Respondents No.1 to 3 in the lurch in a foreign land.Respondents No.1 to 3 were put to great inconvenience, as they were left stranded in Europe without any help and facilityand Respondents No. 1 to 3 had to manage on their own to return to Kolkata. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are on the considered view that there is clear deficiency of service, coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the service providers.

    

In view of the above and the concurrent finding given by both the Fora below, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum as well as State Commission as they have sufficiently justified their respective orders with appropriate findings. We see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merits and hence the same is dismissed.