Date of Filing : 25.01.2012
Date of Order : 07.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.26/2012
THURSDAY THIS 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
K. Srinivasan,
S/o. Krishnamoorthy,
Residing at
NO.D-3, 1st Block,
Lakshmi Kirupa Apartments,
No.9, Rajaji Road,
Salem 636 007. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. Ramesh,
Branch Manager,
Club-7, Holidays Ltd.,
202, Anna Salai,
Opposite to T.V.S.,
Chennai 600 002.
2. Mr. Basu Malik,
Proprietor,
Club-7, Holidays Ltd.,
10, Landsowne Terrace,
Kolkatta 700 026. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : Mr. V. Sekar & others
For the Opposite parties : M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the 18% p.a. and also to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony as compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant has stated that for the “American Essence Tour for 04 Pax” which is scheduled for the departure on 29th April 2011, proposed to be arranged by the opposite parties, the complainant with his family to participate in the said tour has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as initial payment to the opposite parties. On the assurance given by the opposite parties that if the complainant not able to get the visa for the said tour the said amount will be returned to the complainant. The complainant further states that the visa applied for to the embassy by the complainant was rejected as such the complainant has demanded the opposite parties for refund of the said amount and also sent legal notice, despite of several demands made by the complainant and the receipt of the legal notice, the opposite parties has not returned the said amount, as such, the opposite parties has committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the 18% p.a. and also to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony as compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant. . Hence the complaint.
Written Version of opposite parties is briefly as follows:
2. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties submit that the complaint itself not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and further stated that the complainant has paid the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in order to participate in the said tour. The opposite parties denies the allegation that at the time of making above payment, the opposite parties has given assurance to refund the amount on the event of rejection of visa applied for, by the complainant. The said amount paid by the complainant is as per the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant as such the said amount cannot be refundable. The complainant has not furnished of any particulars about the visa applied for and when it was rejected etc., As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties are filed and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
5. POINTS 1 to 2 : - .
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by the complainant and the opposite parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 filed on the side of the opposite parties and considered the both sides arguments.
6. Complainant has stated in his complaint that for the “American Essence Tour for 04 Pax” which is scheduled for the departure on 29th April 2011, proposed to be arranged by the opposite parties, the complainant with his family to participate in the said tour has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as initial payment to the opposite parties as per the receipt Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 on the assurance given by the opposite parties that if the complainant not able to get the visa for the said tour the said amount will be returned to the complainant. The complainant further states that the visa applied for to the embassy by the complainant was rejected as such the complainant has demanded the opposite parties for refund of the said amount and also sent legal notice Ex.A3, despite of several demands made by the complainant and the receipt of the legal notice, the opposite parties has not returned the said amount, as such, the opposite parties has committed deficiency of service, and filed this complainant claiming to return of the said amount and compensation.
7. Whereas the opposite parties has resisted the complaint, stating that the complaint itself not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and further contended that the complainant has paid the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in order to participate in the said tour. The opposite parties denies the allegation that at the time of making above payment, the opposite parties has given assurance to refund the amount on the event of rejection of visa applied for, by the complainant. The said amount paid by the complainant is as per the terms and conditions as per Ex.B1 accepted by the complainant as such the said amount cannot be refundable. The complainant has not furnished of any particulars about the visa applied for and when it was rejected etc., As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for, and the complaint is liable to be rejected.
8. On the careful consideration the averments made in the complaint and the content of the legal notice Ex.A3, the complainant has not mentioned the reason i.e rejection of visa applied for by him for seeking refund of amount from the opposite parties, but it is mentioned as if on enquiry he was informed by the opposite parties that application is rejected and the tour cancelled. But in the complaint, the complainant has stated that the visa applied by him was rejected, as such he could not participate in the tour and as given assurance by the opposite parties, at the time of making payment on the ground of rejection of visa, complainant is entitled for refund of the amount, from the opposite parties. But as contended by the opposite parties complainant has not filed any documents in support of his contention that the visa applied for by him was rejected by the American Embassy. Further in the notice complainant has stated that he has made the payment to the opposite parties in order to participate in the tour by complainant with his family members. Whereas in the complaint there is no whisper about the payment was made including for his family members. It is further pertinent to mention that even the opposite party has also not clarified the above ambiguity whether the said payments under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, made by the complainant and received by the opposite party was for the complainant alone or for the complainant and his family members, further, even it is not clarified by both the parties, how many of the family members are proposed to participate in the said tour.
9. Though the opposite parties has filed Ex.B1 the terms and conditions signed by the complainant as well as opposite parties in a printed form, apart from the said terms and conditions, the application, which is normally be obtained from the complainant for registering for the proposal for the tour by the opposite parties has not been filed as document on the side of opposite parties. Further in the normal course the opposite parties has to get the necessary application form from the proposed participator of the tour, the complainant which will contains the names of the persons, and their particulars, the total amount of charge for the tour with breakup particulars of charges for air ticket, other transport charges, boarding and lodging charges for the stay in different places etc and also the mode and schedule of payments etc., whereas without filing those documents obtained from the complainant, mere filing of Ex.B1 on the side of opposite party is not acceptable and no reliance will be placed on the Ex.B1, since the execution of the same and the signature of the complainant in the said document is denied by the complainant. Further Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 receipts are appeared only as mere receipts for the said payment made by the complainant to the opposite parties, but they did not contains any other particulars such as whether the said amount were made towards booking charges or service charges or for the whole tour programme charges etc., Therefore considering the both side case on their pleading as well as proof affidavits and their documents filed herewith, we are of the considered view that the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were paid and received by the opposite parties only as initial payment without finalizing or booking of tour by the complainant to participate in the proposed tour. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant has not obtained necessary visa for the said tour, and the opposite parties have also not confirmed the tour programme for the complainant or with his family, and the said tour programme also been cancelled without making any arrangement for the complainant. Since the opposite parties has not put forth in their case that they have incurred expenditure towards the arrangement of tour for the complainant in particular such as purchase of air ticket, arrangement for boarding and lodging in the proposed tour place etc., there is no justification on the part of opposite party for the denial of refund of the said amount paid by the complainant.
10. Therefore considering the above facts and circumstances of this particular case, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to return the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards official processing charges, to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of legal notice i.e 07.05.2011 to till the date of payment. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation sought for in the complaint against the opposite parties, further the parties have to bear their own cost for this litigation. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) as refund to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 07.05.2011 to till the date of payment. No costs.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 7th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 7.3.2011 - Copy of receipt issued by 1st opposite party.
Ex.A2- 17.3.2011 - Copy of receipt issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3- 7.5.2011 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A4- 9.5.2011 - Copy of Ack. card signed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A5- 10.5.2011 - Copy of Ack. card signed by the 2nd opposite party
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- - - Copy of terms and conditions.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
