Order No. 13 dt. 27/10/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant booked a trip on 14.12.2012 for travelling to Bangkok and Pattaya organised by the op and for that purpose paid Rs.24,010/- . Subsequently the complainant was informed by the op that the respective currency of said country i.e. Baht is needed to foreign tour as such the complainant again paid Rs.19,000/-. It was found to the utter surprise of the complainant that the op had booked the date of journey from 04.04.2013 instead of 26.03.2013 and the said date of journey was informed at the last moment and the complainant expressed his unwillingness to avail of the said tour but the complainant joined in the said tour after expressing his anguish. Subsequently, OP issued a cheque Rs.6,600/- in favour of the complainant keeping the liability of the OP to return 3400 Bahat who is the OP did not return to the complainant. The complainant was provided with a cheque by the OP towards the liability of the OP to return the balance amount. The complainant deposited the cheque but the cheque was dishonored. The complainant noticed that during the tour not a single person was present in the said country having the knowledge of English for which the complainant faced immense hardship. The quality of food was not good during the period of said journey for which the complainant also faced acute problems. After return the complainant sent a Lawyer’s notice mentioning therein the deficiency in service committed by the OP and accordingly after filing this case the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00.000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- damage for harassment and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing written version whereby the OP denied all the material allegations of the complainant . It was stated by the OP that the complainant with malafide intention and to affect the goodwill of Sunny Sand Holidays filed this case. The OP further stated that there was no deficiency in service in conducting the said tour and the complainant will not be entitled get any relief from this case.
On the basis of the pleadings oof the respective parties the following points are to be determined:
- Had the complainant booked for a foreign tour programme conducted by the OP
- Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for;
Decision with reasons :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that on perusal of the advertisement in a newspaper booked a trip on 14.12.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.24,010/- to the OP and subsequently he paid further Rs.19,000/- . After the payment of the said money the complainant was informed that the date of journey was shifted from 26.03..2013 to 04.04.2013. The OP issued a cheque of Rs.6,600/- in favour of the complainant but the OP did not return his remaining liability of 3400 Baht and the cheque issued by the OP was dishonored due to insufficiency of fund. Apart from the said fact, the guide provided by the OP during the said tour had no knowledge of English causing great hardship to the complainant. The food provided to the complainant was of poor quality and there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which the complainant has prayed for the reliefs.
The Ld. Lawyer for the OP submits that in order to jeopardize the repudiation of the OP this case was filed and the date which was changed after consultation with the complainant and the OP has never faced any complain in respect of the services provided by the OP . The OP provided comfortable journey and never claimed any extra amount from the tourists. In order to squeeze money from the OP this case has been filed. Accordingly the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the OP conducted the tour of visiting different countries and for that purpose the complainant paid the amount . The complainant could not produce any document to show that the OP demanded extra money from the complainant. So far as the case filed by the complainant against by the OP u/s 138 N.I.Act , the said case is pending before the Ld. Magistrate, Alipore Court, the said case will be decided by the Ld. Court on the basis of the merit of the said case. The complainant though claimed that the guide had no knowledge of English is not corroborated by any witness who was the member of the said tourist party as well as the quality of food provided by the OP has not been proved by the complainant by not bringing any witness from the said tourist party to corroborate the allegation of the complainant.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that in order to have money from the OP by making wild allegations against the OP , the complainant filed this case thereby we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered
that the cc no.360/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply certified copy to parties free of cost.
