S.Girija Selvaraj-Petitioner/Complainant (In RP No.3092 of 2012) and S.Prabhu Vignesh Kumar (minor) represented by his father N/F V. Selvaraj (in RP No. 3093 of 2012) filed Complaint Cases (Nos. 34 and 33 of 2009)respectively, before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem(for short, District Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of Respondent/O.P. 2. District Forum, vide separate orders dated, 21.12.2009, dismissed the complaints holding, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Petitioner-S.Girija Selvaraj filed (F.A.No.125 of 2010) and Petitioner- S.Prabhu Vignesh Kumar(minor) filed (F.A.No.126 of 2010) before Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, tate Commission. The State Commission dismissed both appeals with cost of Rs.2,000/- each, invoking Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ct vide impugned order, dated 29.2.2011. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioners have filed these petitions. 5. Brief facts are that petitioners alongwith six other tourists joined a tour programme organized by respondent travel company which had issued a Pamphlet with details of tour programme of various places. It is alleged that respondent did not honour its commitment of showing all the places as mentioned in the Pamphlet and had collected Rs.2,500/- in excess and had also given bad food on many occasions contrary to the offer of high class vegetarian food. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the respondent. 6. In its written version, respondent explained the reasons for collecting extra amount of Rs.2,500/- per tourist. It attributed the increase in detention charges for the special carriage, increase in service charges and also collection of empty haulage charges by the Railway Department. Subsequent hike in bus fares in the course of tour programme also compelled it to collect Rs.2,500/- per head. Respondent had informed all the tourists three to four months prior to the date of journey by way of printed pamphlets during November 2006. All tourists including petitioners had paid the excess amount much before the date of journey. If petitioners were not willing to pay the extra amount, they would have opted to take back the amount paid initially. Respondent denied the petitionersallegations as false. 7. Petitioners did not appear before this Commission inspite of service. However, they have sent written arguments pleading that these petitions may be decided on merits. 8. We have perused the written arguments as well as record of these cases. 9. District Forum after considering the facts in detail and after due appreciation of the evidence, held; There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not showing the Krishna Bhagavan Temple and inside the Agra Fort and Jandar Mandir and the guide has acted as per the desire of the majority of the tour participants. So, the opposite party need not pay any compensation to the complainant towards deficiency of serviced and the complainant deserves to be dismissed and this point is answered accordingly 10. State Commission, while dismissing the appeals, observed ; The learned counsel for Respondent submitted that the complainant husband had already filed a consumer dispute C. C. No. 96/2007 in which the District Forum allowed the complaint. In the said C.C. the complainant prayed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 2,500/- to each person totally 7 persons. The District Forum allowed the complaint partly and the appellant/opposite parties preferred an appeal against the order by F.A.No.500/2008.The State Commission also confirmed the order of the District Forum. But here the complainant in F.A. No. 125/2010 who is none other than the wife of the complainant suppressed the above suit and the order. The complainant in F.A. No. 126/22010 in C.C. No. 33/209 is a minor represented by his father who had already filed a consumer disputes on behalf of his family. The complainant/father has suppressed all the details in both the cases. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in eacg, invoking Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, confirming the orders of the District Forum, Salem in C.C.34 & 33/2009 dated 21.12.2009 11. It is an admitted fact that Sh.V.Selvaraj, husband of petitioner (in RP No. 3092 of 2012) and father of petitioner (in RP No. 3093 of 2012) had earlier filed a complaint case (No. 96 of 2007) for himself and six others. The complaint of V. Selvaraj was allowed but claim of other six was not considered as that complaint was not filed on representation basis. Present petitioners have concealed the material facts about the earlier complaint filed on their behalf. State Commission, under these circumstances rightly dismissed their appeals on the ground of suppression of material facts. 12. It is well settled that any party who seeks an equitable relief must approach the judicial Forum with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts. Honle Supreme Court in Faquir Chand Gulati Vs. M/s Uppal Agencies P. Ltd. & Anr. Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18225-18226 of 2011 dated 14.08.2011 observed ; From what we have stated above, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, he is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the judgment of this Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P.(2010) 2 SCC 114, the first two paragraphs of which are extracted below ; 1. For many centuries Indian Society cherished two basic values of life i.e. atya(truth) and hinsa(non-violence) Mahavir, Gautam Budha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people use to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppressions of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed to not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final 13. Since, petitioners concealed the material facts in their complaints, the State Commission, rightly dismissed their appeals. We find no infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order. Present petitions under these circumstances are not maintainable and same are dismissed. 14. No order as to cost.