This order shall dispose of the above three revision petitions since the facts are similar except the variation of amounts.  The facts are being taken from RP No.2180/2009.

          In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents paid a sum of Rs.4,502/- each to the travel agent for taking them to a trip to Rameshwaram along with their wives on 21.8.2006.  Petitioner did not take them to Rameshwaram.  He also did not refund the amount.  Aggrieved by this, the complainants filed complaints before the District Forum.

          On being issued notice, petitioner entered appearance and took the stand that he cancelled the trip for 21.8.2006 as sufficient number of pilgrims did not register themselves and later on, he made an offer to take the complainants on the trip to Rameshwaram on 19.5.2007, for which sufficient number of pilgrims were available, which the respondents did not accept.  In view of this, the complaint does not have any merit and the same be dismissed.

          District Forum rejected the defence taken by the petitioner          and directed him to refund the sum of Rs.4,502/-.  Rs.5000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs. 

Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

            We agree with the view taken by the foras below.  Respondents had booked themselves to take the trip to Rameshwaram on 21.8.2006.   In case, the petitioner was not in a position to take the trip to Rameshwaram on 21.8.2006 then, at least, he should have refunded the deposited amount.  He could not withhold the amount and make an offer to the respondents to take them to Rameshwaram after nine months which may not been suitable to the concerned persons.  There was clear deficiency on part of the petitioner.  No interference is called for in the impugned order.  Dismissed.