By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant is the proprietor of a textile shop, for an entertainment journey along with workers in the shop, altogether comes 30 in numbers, including the Complainant, intended to visit the Amusement Park run by the 1^st Opposite Party. The booking in advance for the entry in the Veega Holidays Park was on 26.10.2007. The day decided for the visit was on 01.11.2007. When the 1^st Opposite Party was communicated it was informed the complainant that the sale promoting agency of the 1^st Opposite Party is the 2^nd Opposite Party and as directed by the 1^st Opposite Party, the 2^nd Opposite Party was contacted and the Complainant booked trip to the amusement park. The day fixed for the journey was the Harthal day, declared by the Barathiya Janatha Party. Fearing of any eventuality of the closing of the park when the party reaches there, the Opposite Parties were contacted in advance before starting journey. But the confirmation was given by the Opposite Parties. The declaration of the Harthal by Barathiya Janatha Party was published weeks before. Knowing the consequences, the Complainant sought the confirmation. The Complainant hired two vehicles for the journey of 30 members and reached at the park at 5.30 AM on 1.11.2007. The Complainant and other members in the journey had to be tied up there till evening, since the park remained closed. The vehicles were hired for Rs.14,850/- and for food and other incidental expenses Rs.10,000/- was spent by the Complainant. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs. 14,850/- for rent of the vehicles, incidental expenses Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings Rs.25,000/- in total Rs. 49,850/- is to be given to the Complainant.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the contention of the Opposite Parties are as follows:- the booking of the Complainant for visit of the Veega Holidys and Park Private Ltd is admitted. The booking of the parties are done by the agencies of the 1^st Opposite Party. It is only for getting an information on the numbers of the visitors. But no charge is levied for booking. The park run by the 1^st opposite Party is in the customary of opening it even in the Harthal or Benth days. Any untoward incident evented not to make the park open the Opposite Parties are not liable. The Harthal was declared by Barathiya Janatha Party. The technicians and other experts who are engaged in the running of gadgets in the park could not reach there for duty in consequence of the Benth. The park is run with sophisticated instruments for the plying of the same technicians are inevitable.

3. The allegation of the Complaint that the 2^nd Opposite Party approached the Complainant in the booking purpose is incorrect. The Complainant had collected information on the procedure of the booking from the 2^nd Opposite Party. Regarding other facilities no assurance was given by anyone of the Opposite Parties that the park would be opened on the Harthal day. Other visitors who booked or visited the park on the same day was also informed of their inability to open the park. According to the Opposite Parties the Complainant had not come to the park on 01.11.2007 as alleged. The complaint is motivated for monitory gains exerting undue influence and what more it is only to tarnish the reputation of the firm, the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

4. Points in consideration are.

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Relief and costs.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant and Opposite Parties filed affidavits swearing the contentions, Exts. A1 to A8 are the documents produced by the Complainant. The Complainant and Opposite Parties have given oral testimony to substantiate their contention. The case of the Complainant is that the 2^nd Opposite Party's the agency of the 1^st Opposite Party who booked for the visitors for the entry in to the Amusement Park, Veega Holidays. The visit was intended on 01.11.2007 the day on which Barathiya Janatha Party declared Harthal and it was published in advance. The question is to be decided whether the closer of the park due to the Harthal is informed to the Complainant. The booking was done in black and white by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 26.10.2007 even at that time the declaration of the Harthal was still in effect. The Complainant was not informed of any inconvenience or any probability of not opening the Amusement Park. Ext.A6 is the reply notice sent by the 1^st Opposite Party. It is averred in it that the Complainant was adamant in visiting the park but the Opposite Party has no such case. The Complainant along with other workers in the shop journeyed to Veega Holidays in anticipation of its opening. The Opposite Parties have not produced any document to establish their contention that the Complainant was informed in advance the closer of the Amusement park. No prudent man will be ready to take the risk of conducting a journey on the Harthal Day, if the closer of the Amusement Park was informed in advance. From the discussion of the above we are in the opinion that the Complainant was not informed of the closer of the Amusement Park run by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is only an agency promoting the business of the first one. The Deputy Manager of the 1^st Opposite Party admitted that they had not directly informed the Complainant and when the information conveyed to the 2^nd Opposite Party on their inability to open the park is not produced in document. Above all the Harthal declared by the Barathiya Janatha Party was not a sudden one. In the light of this discussion, we are in the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

6. Point No.2:- The total amount claimed by the Complainant is Rs. 50,000/- towards the rent of the vehicle Rs.14,850/- is spent. The incidental expenses according to the Complainant is Rs.10,000/- which is not supported by any documents. The complaint is filed according to the Complainant as the proprietor for and in behalf of the workers but no document is produced by the Complainant that the complaint is filed in the capacity of representation for the workers also. In the oral testimony of the Complainant it is further deposed that he had to meat 1/30^th of the total expense of the trip. The incidental expenses and other expenses calculated roundly the Complainant has to meet only Rs.1,000/- at the most towards the expenses. The risk taken by the Complainant is not lightly seen towards the sufferings and other losses the Complainant is to be compensated.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to give the Complainant Rs. 1,000/-towards his share spent for the journey along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the hardships including cost and sufferings. The Opposite Parties are also directed to give jointly or severally Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) in total to the Complainant within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Ranjith Complainant

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. M.B. Mahesh. Deputy Manager, Veegaland.

OPW2. Sojan Varghese. Sales Agent, Veegaland

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Tour Booking Form (General) dt:26.10.2007

A2. Tripsheet for Contract Carriage/Tourist Taxi. (Vehicle No. KL 12.C 6151)

A3. Tripsheet for Contract Carriage/Tourist Taxi. (Vehicle No. KL 12.B 8773)

A4. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:15.11.2007

A5. Acknowledgement

A6. Reply Notice. dt:29.11.2007.

A7. Receipt. (Parking Fee).

A8. Receipt for Payment of Toll Fee

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.