Tapan Kumar Chattopadhyay,

49/5, Sastri Narendranath  Ganguly Road,

Santragachi, Howrah – 711 104, ---------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Rabi Sarkar,

( Prop. of Sunny Sand Holidays )

37/1D, Hazra Road,

Kolkata – 700 029, P.S. Ballygunge,

Previous address – Ballygunge New Market (2^nd floor )

, Room no. 232 & 233,

Kolkata – 700 029.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  It is the specific grievance of the complainant, Shri  Tapan Kr.  Chattopadhyay

that even after receiving entire consideration money from him for conducting several tours, O.P. did not conduct any tour to China as per the contract.

2.                  Brief fact of the case is that complainant paid  Rs. 1,28,590/- in several

installments both by cheques drawn on S.B.I. Kadamtala Branch, Howrah, and also by cash in between 10-06-2011 to 24-09-2011 for four foreign tours including China tour vide annexures copy of bank statement and money receipts. Complainant alleged that all three tours were conducted and completed by February, 2012 after altering the schedule dates at least for thrice. But China tour was never conducted by O.P. even after deferring the dates from March to June to August to October,2012. Thereafter a lot  of hat talks took place between O.P. and the complainant and after a lot of persuasion on 14-12-2012, O.P. handed over a cheque of Rs. 42,000/- dated 03-01-2013 deducting Rs. 7,900/- without assigning any reason for such deduction vide annexure copy of cheque dated 03-01-2013. But on 07-09-2013 the said cheque was dishonoured. Being aggrieved and finding no other alternative, alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed this case praying for a direction to be given upon the O.P. to refund Rs. 49,990/- being the cost price of  China tour and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation, interest on Rs. 1,28,590/-

for delay in conducting scheduled tours, litigation cost and conveyance expenses including phone calls made by him during long 18 months.

3.                  Notice was served upon O.P. O.P. appeared and filed written version.  

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Denying and disputing all

allegations levelled against it by the complainant, O.P. vide para nos. 6,7,8,9,10 tried to explain its innocence. Vide para 7 of written version O.P. stated the different dates for which complainant dismissed to avail different tours. It is surprising enough that a single person  opted for two different tours like Bankok / Pattaya and China scheduled on the same date i.e., on 25-09-2011. Moreover, from the advertisement dated 06-06-2011, there is no such date scheduled for those two tours. Even in the money receipts no specific dates have been mentioned by O.P. for which they took entire consideration money for all four tours. As the complainant paid such a handsome amount of Rs. 1,28,590/-, he was compelled to avail himself of three tours dragged upto February, 2012 when he paid entire amount by 24-09-2011. It clearly shows that O.P. is not at all concerned about consumer satisfaction. Even complainant waited upto October,2012 for  China tour. But all his hopes went in vain. And after much effort he could get a cheque on 14-12-2012 for an amount of Rs. 42,000/- from O.P. but it was again dishonoured. This is nothing but gross negligence on the part of O.P. And even after waiting for a long time when China    tour was not conducted by O.P., complainant is definitely entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 49,990/- paid towards the China tour. By deducting Rs. 7,900/- without assigning any valid reason, O.P. has committed another mistake. By his every action, O.P. has violated and  disregarded the terms of contract which was  based on mutual faith and belief.

Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with cost against O.P.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  of 201 ( HDF  of 201 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      The O.P. be directed to within 30 days from the date of this order

      The o.p. do also pay a sum of Rs. /- for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainants.

      The complainants are also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. /-.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.