Date of filing : 16-06-07 Date of order : 11-12-08. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.44/07 Dated this, the 11th day of December 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Nafeesa.V.P, W/p.C.Hamza, } Complainant ‘Priya’, North Kovval, Po.Trikarpur 671310, Kasaragod- Kerala State. (Adv. M.T.P.Abdul Kareem, Hosdurg) M/s RMP Infotec Pvt.Ltd, Appolo Dubai Plaza, } Opposite party. 100, Mahalingapuram Main Road, Cheenai-600 034.Rep.by its Director, Pravin.J.Chandan. (Adv.Sreekantha shetty, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Complainant Nafeesa.VP, attracted with the different packages of opposite party suitable for accommodation of different tourist interest places, selected the holiday resort package at Sterling Lake View, Kodaikanal. She complied necessary formalities and paid prescribed amount Rs.4990/- and Rs.700/- to arrange accommodation at Sterling Lake View Kodaikanal. But against the offer made, the opposite party arranged package facility at Silver Castle Resorts, Prakashapuram of Arihant Hotel Solutions, Mumbai. As this was against the offer of opposite party complainant returned the reservation voucher and demanded the refund of the amount paid by her. But it was not returned. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite party they engaged in multi level marketing business. Complainant is not a consumer as she became a distributor of the products of the opposite party on payment of Rs.4990/-. The holiday resort package is an incentive of the company. 3. The Power of Attorney of the complainant examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the complainant No documents produced by Opposite party. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that she opted the attractive tourism package and made order for Holiday Resort Package at Sterling Lake View, Kodaikanal for which she paid Rs.4990/- as advance amount and Rs.700/- as utility charges. But opposite party against the offer arranged Silver Castle Resorts where the accommodation is much cheaper. Hence she rejected the reservation voucher. According to opposite party complainant is a distributor of the company. But the opposite party has not produced any documents to show that complainant has distributed any items of the opposite party company as a distributor. Had she became a distributor as stated surely there would have been evidence of distribution of a products since that only entitles her to claim the benefits as a distributor. But opposite party admits in their version that the complainant has not paid any amount except the alleged payment of Rs.4990/- towards distributorship fee. The opposite party has no case that as against the acceptance of utility charges of Rs.700/- they arranged Sterling Lake View at Kodaikanal. After collection of amount opposite party failed to fulfill their offer. This is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There fore they are liable to refund the amount collected from complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the sum of Rs.5690/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.Brochure with prize list issued by RMP A2. Photo copy of DD amounting Rs.4990/- A3. Photocopy of DD receipt. A4.13-1-07 photocopy of Reservation Voucher A5. 21-1-07 letter sent by complainant to OP A6. 06-02 letter sent by complainant to OP (Regd Post) A7. 1-3-07 copy of lawyer’s notice. A8. Postal acknowledgement card. PW1. C.Hamza MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDEN T Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
