Ex-P A R T E   O R D E R

PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        The Complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he is consumer within the meaning and definition of consumer under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act).  The Opposite Party No.1 is a Proprietary Concern carrying on the business as a Travel Agent.  The Opposite Party No.2 is the son of Mr. Daya Shankar Patel and Opposite Party No.3 is the Sale Manager of Opposite Party No.1.  After the demise of Mr. Daya Shankar Patel the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have been looking after the affairs of him and Opposite Party No.1.

2)        According to the Complainant, he had booked Mumbai – La Paz – Mumbai, return air tickets by South African Airways for the flight having departure at 2.30 a.m. on 18/10/2009 as the Complainant wanted to go to Bolivia.  It is alleged that as Bolivia does not have an Embassy or consulate in India, he had applied to a Bolivian Embassy an route either in Peru, China or any other country having Bolivian Embassy or Consulate.  According to the Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 had assured the Complainant that their agency would easily get the Tourist Visas for Peru or China and suggested to apply for the Tourist Visa for Peru at their Delhi Embassy.  The Opposite Parties for the said purpose demanded advance payment such as, applying visa and other expenses like booking of South African Airways return air tickets from Mumbai-Lima-Mumbai.  The Complainant as the demand of Opposite Party paid Rs.50,000/- by Cheque No.639101 drawn on Punjab National Bank which was paid from the account of Rajendraprasad S. Padhi on behalf of the Complainant.  On 23/07/2009, the Opposite Parties also booked two South African Airways air tickets for Mumbai-Lima-Mumbai.  The schedule departure on 10/08/2009 and return ticket on 20/08/09. The booking reference No. was 2124AB. The Complainant had provided all the necessary documents like Original Passport, IT Returns, Bank Statements, Yellow Fever Certificates, Hotel Reservation in Lima, etc. to Opposite Party No.1 on 23/07/2009 alongwith the cheque payment.  It is alleged that the Opposite Parties then informed that they had sent all these documents to their visa agents, Kibria Travel Services Pvt. Ltd., Joshi Building, Goa Street, Fort, Mumbai -01, who would submit all the required documents alongwith visa application forms on 25/07/2009  for Peru Tourist Visa through their office in New Delhi.  It was also informed that it will take 7 working days to get the Visas from the Peru High Commission in New Delhi. 

3)        According to the Complainant till 12/08/2009 the Complainant was not given visas and it was told that he would get the visa very soon.  However, on 13/08/2009 Opposite Parties informed that the Peru High Commission was asking for some more documents like full hand digital prints as per revised rules for application for Peru Visa. Accordingly, on 14/08/2009, the Applicant and Raju Vadiraj Belgaonkar approached to the Fort Office of the Opposite Parties and gave their finger prints on the prescribed forms.  The Opposite Parties then informed that they will immediately sent those finger prints to the visa agent for submitting to the Peru High Commission in New Delhi on 16/08/09. The Opposite Party on 17/08/09 informed the Complainant that they have received confirmation from their visa agent that the Peru visas have been issued and the visa agent will collect the same from the Peru High Commission and the Complainant will definitely get the stamped passport with tourist visa by 7.00 p.m. on 19/08/09.  It is alleged that as the Peru Tourist Visas were assumed to be issued the Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to reschedule the Bombay-Lima-Bombay flight to a later date as the passengers wanted to prepare for their long trip to Lima and also prepared for all documentation for applying for Bolivian Visa Lima.  Accordingly on 18/08/09, the Opposite Party rescheduled the South African Airways tickets (reference/PNR No.2124AB) to 26/08/09 and return tickets to 27/09/2009 and handed over the print of confirm air tickets for two persons. It is alleged that however, till evening of 19/08/09 the Opposite Parties were not able to give the passports with Peru Visa to the Complainant or gave any concrete information as to when the Complainant would get the stamped passport with Peru Visa.  The Opposite Party said that their visa agent was not able to contact Delhi staff who had gone to Peru Embassy to collect the visas.  It was told that they would check with visa agent on next day and inform about the undue delay in dispatching the passport to their Mumbai Office.  On 20/08/09, the Complainant called the Opposite Parties but it was told that their visa agent was not able to contact their New Delhi staff who had collected the passport from the Peru Embassy.  The Opposite Parties again asked the Complainant to contact on next day and definitely they would hand over the passport.  The Complainant again contacted the Opposite Party but he had not received any clear reply.  The Complainant thereafter, again contacted on 22/08/09 and 23/08/09, but till 6.00 p.m. he did not receive the stamped passport with Peru Visa.  The Complainant then asked the Opposite Party No.1 to give concrete confirmation as to whether they are getting the visas or not.  On 25/08/09, in the morning the Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that the Tourist Visas had not yet been issued and the Peru High Commission is asking for some more documents to grant the visas. The Opposite Parties said that they would forward the e-mail as received from the visa agent on the e-mail address of Shrikrishna Padhi.  It is alleged that the Opposite Parties did not give any reference number to the Complainant of visa application submitted to the Peru High Commission in New Delhi when he asked for it.  The Opposite Parties sent e-mail to Mr. Padhi giving details of all the additional documents asked by Peru High Commission, New Delhi.  The Complainant not satisfied with the response received from the Opposite Parties decided to contact directly to the visa section of Peru High Commission, New Delhi to enquire about the exact status of Tourist Visa in respect of him.  He then contacted through Mr. Padhi to Peru High Commission in New Delhi on telephone numbers 01146163333 and 01146163308 to enquire about the visas status.  After giving the passport details the Visa Officer informed that their system does not show any records of visa applications being received for the passport of the Complainant.  It is alleged that after getting the information from the Peru High Commission and the talk took place with the Peru High Commission Office the Complainant immediately informed to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Parties said that they will call the visa agent to check out if anything can be done or not.  After talking with the visa agent of the Opposite Parties the Opposite Party No.2 informed to the Complainant that there is very big demand for getting visas for South African countries by the illegal immigrants from Punjab and other North Indian States and people are ready to pay even Rs.5 Lacs to get these visas.  It was informed to the Complainant that they have very good connection with various Embassies in New Delhi and they can easily arrange to the get the Peru Visas for two persons in just 3 days. It was also informed that that the Complainant will have to pay at least Rs.50,000/- in cash per person in addition too all other official expenses like visa application fees and agent fees etc.  According to the Complainant, he refused to accept the said illegal demand from the Opposite Parties and asked to return back the original documents passport, etc. and refund the full amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to the Opposite Parties for booking their air tickets and applying for Peru Visa.  The copy of the cheque receipt of Rs.50,000/- is annexure ‘C-1’.

4)        The Opposite Parties then asked for some time to get back the original documents from New Delhi Office and the visa agent.  It is submitted that all the original documents including the passport were returned by the Opposite Parties on 26/08/09.  The Opposite Party No.2 at that time suggested to the Complainant that it is very easy to get the Chinese Tourist Visa and there are not many formalities and documents are required and assured the Complainant that he can get Chinese Tourist Visa in just 3 days from the Chinese Visa Application Service Centre and also suggested that then two persons can visit Bolivian Embassy in Beijing and there they can apply for visa to visit Bolivian. The Opposite Party No.2 also suggested the Complainant not to cancel the previously booked air tickets from Mumbai-Lima-Mumbai and he can easily re-route to Mumbai-La Paz-Mumbai at some additional cost.  The Complainant agreed for the said suggestions and opted to give one more chance to the Opposite Parties to get the Chinese Tourist Visa.  The Opposite Parties then asked the Complainant to pay some more amounts to book Mumbai-Beijing-Mumbai Air tickets as required for applying the Chinese Visa.  It is alleged that on 27/08/09, the Complainant deposited Cheque No.639105 of 27/08/09 amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for the Complainant and Rs.10,000/- for Raju Vadiraj Belgaonkar) drawn on Punjab National Bank to deposit in Current Account of the Opposite Parties (A/c.No.0061008700000170).  It is alleged that this was an internal bank transfer as the Complainant was not having money and he arranged the money from Rajendraprasad Padhi.  The Complainant on 29/08/09 handed over the original documents like passport etc. to the Opposite Party No.1 alongwith signed application form for Chinese Tourist Visa.  The Opposite Parties informed that they will apply for the Chinese visa at New Delhi Chinese Visa Application Service Centre.  It is alleged that the Complainant cautioned the Opposite Parties about the previous failure of their visa agent however, the Opposite Parties told that there was some mistake done by the Mumbai office employee of the visa agent and that person has been removed from the office and this time there won’t be any problem.  It is alleged that the visa agent submitted the 2 Visa Applications to the New Delhi Chinese Visa Application Service Centre on 31/08/09 and send scanned copy of the receipt of the China application numbering “G0052129” with pickup date 03/09/09.  They copy was e-mailed to e-mail address “embroideryparts@gmail.com” by Ujwala Joshi an employee of the Opposite Party.  On 04/09/09, the Opposite Party informed that the Chinese Visas were rejected by the said office without giving any reason.  The Complainant asked the Opposite Parties to get back all the original documents from the said office and also asked not to cancel Mumbai-Lima-Mumbai Air tickets which would be re-routed later on to avoid cancellation charges. The Complainant then decided to try for getting the Chinese visas through some other agencies.  It is alleged that thereafter, on 05/09/09 the Opposite Party contacted a friend who was in China on a business trip and asked about the procedure for getting the Chinese Visa.  The said friend told the Opposite Party to contact travel agency Cox and Kings India Ltd.      

5)        According to the Complainant the Manager of Cox and Kings of Andheri Branch informed that it is very easy to get Chinese Tourist Visa on fulfilling proper documents and requirements.  The said Manager asked the Complainant to submit all the requirements and documents and also pay the amount for booking air tickets. On 08/09/09 the Complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to Cox and Kings by Cheque No.639109 dtd.08/09/09 (Rs.20,000/- for the Complainant and Rs.20,000/- for Raju Vadiraj Belgaonkar) as an advance payment for booking Mumbai-Beijing-Mumbai air tickets for Chinese Visas charges.  The said office asked the Complainant and Raju to submit their updated bank statements showing a minimum amount equivalent to US $ 3000 OR Rs.1,50,000/- as per China Visa rout. The Complainant handed over all the documents like passport, bank statements, etc. to Cox and Kings India Ltd. , Andheri Office and paid further amount of Rs.36,698/- by NEFT Transfer dtd.14/09/09 for China Visa ad Hotel Booking in China.  The Cox and King staff informed that they will be applying the Chinese Visas on 15/09/09 and they will get visas in 4 working day i.e. by 18/09/09.  It is submitted that the Chinese visas granted on 18/09/09 and the Complainant made a final payment to Cox and Kings India Ltd. of the amount of Rs.34,809/- by Cheque No.639113, dtd.18/09/09 (Rs.17404.50 paise for the Complainant himself and Rs.17404.50 paise for Raj Belgaonkar).  The Complainant accordingly paid Rs.55750/- till 18/09/09 to Cox and Kind India Ltd. for getting Chinese Visas Air Tickets Hotel Reservation per person.  The Complainant received the stamped passport on 19/09/09.  the Complainant asked the Opposite Party No.1 to re-route their air tickets Mumbai-La Paz-Mumbai as those would be needed to submit the Bolivian Embassy in Beijing to apply for their visas.  

6)        According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party then asked the Complainant to make additional payment for booking the said air tickets to La Paz Bolivia.  Accordingly, the Complainant made payment of Rs.20,000/- by Cheque No.639115, dtd.19/09/09, Rs.10,000/- for himself and Rs.10,000/- for Raju Belgaonkar and also cheque of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.639114, dtd.19/09/09.  The Opposite Parties issued receipts for the above payments which are marked as annexure ‘C-2’ colly.  The Opposite Parties on 20/09/09 accordingly re-routed Mumbai-La-Paz-Mumbai Air tickets for flight dtd.14/10/09 and for return dtd.15/11/09 by South African Airways reference/PNR No.SA/2124ABTAH4M6G.

7)        It is alleged that on 25/09/09 after the full and final settlement regarding all the services and air tickets the last and final payment for Mumbai La Paz-Mumbai Air Tickets was paid to the Opposite Party No.1 by last Cheque No.639116, dtd.19/09/09 of Rs.24,234/- out of which Rs.12,117/- for the Complainant and Rs.12,117/- for Raju Belgaonkar.  It is alleged that it was agreed between the parties that no more amount was payable to the Opposite Parties for other services like Peru and China Visas as they were unable to provide the same in time and causing undue delay for the technicians to go to Bolivia.  Copy of the cheque dtd.19/09/09 is annexure ‘C-3’.

8)        According to the Complainant, he had paid the total amount of Rs.1,32,117/- towards the full and final settlement of all the amount due to him. 

9)        According to the Complainant as per schedule date on 27/09/09 he went to Beijing and submitted all the required documents to Bolivian Embassy.  On 28/09/09 they were issued the Bolivian Visas on the same day within 2 hrs. The Complainant returned back to Mumbai on 04/10/09 by Cathy Pacific Airways Flight. The Complainant then approached to the Opposite Party No.1 to reconfirm the air tickets with them.  The Opposite Party rechecked the same on their IATA Booking System and informed that there was some problem with timings of one of the connecting flight being less then an hour and also all seats were not 100% confirmed.  The Complainant therefore, offered to get some new dates on which he would ensured that all the seat are 100% confirmed by the concerned airlines and they would no timing problems between two connecting times.

10)      Then on 12/10/09 the Opposite Parties gave the Complainant new air tickets Mumbai-La Paz-Mumbai flights dtd.18/10/09 with return dtd.20/11/09 for two persons.  They also confirmed that all flights and seats were 100% confirmed by them with concerned airlines and the Complainant can go ahead with a journey without any problem.

11)      According to the Complainant on 17/10/09 as per scheduled flight date the Complainant arrived at 10.00 p.m. at Mumbai International Airport “Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal A” to check in for his flight.  It is alleged that when he reported at the airport to check in for the said flight he was not issued the boarding passes by South African Airways Staff at the CST International Airport.  It was informed to the Complainant that they cannot allow the Complainant to take the flight because the booking agent of the Opposite Party had not given the mandatory “Go ahead” or “Check in confirmation” of the passenger boarding the said flight inspite of many      e-mails and telephone calls made to their office in the last week before the scheduled flight.  The reservation office of South African Airways had called the Opposite Party No.1’s office and also sent many e-mails reminders as per their normal pre-flight procedures. It was also informed that the Opposite Parties do not provide the passengers details and contact numbers to the Airline while booking their tickets.  The Opposite Party had mentioned their own Companies address, contact numbers and    e-mail address.  It was informed that due to this the Airline was unable to contact the Complainant directly regarding confirmation of “Check in” for the scheduled flight.  The South African Airways staff at the airport told the Complainant that they can only allowed the Complainant to board the said flight only after getting the confirmation from the booking agency.  They asked the Complainant to ask the travel agent to contact them immediately.  According to the Complainant it was almost 11.30 p.m. And the travel agent office was closed.  The Complainant tried calling on the mobile numbers of the concerned persons of the Opposite Party No.1’s office i.e. Opposite Party No.2 & 3 but their mobiles were also turned off and unavailable.  The airport staff of South African Airways informed the technicians that it will be better if they contact their travel agent (i.e. Opposite Party) and re-book the air tickets to another flight scheduled later in the week. They also informed that the ticket of the Complainant was still valid and there was no cancellation or forfeiture of the air ticket as the passengers had arrived for check in well before the required time. The Complainant therefore, had no option and decided to go back home and contact the travel agent in the morning.

12)      According to the Complainant on 18/10/09, the technicians called up the Opposite Parties on their mobile and informed them about the problem of the air ticket of the Complainant.  The Opposite Parties then asked the Complainant to come to his office after 12 p.m. and he will check out with the airlines about the problem.  Accordingly the Complainant went to meet the Opposite Parties in their office.  The Opposite Party No.2 was absent and it was instructed to follow up the matter by Opposite Party No.3.  It is alleged that Opposite Party No.3 apologized for all the problems faced by the Complainant due to the deficiency of service negligence and lapses on their side and assured the Complainant that they would try and book 100% confirmed ticket for Mumbai-La Paz-Mumbai schedule on 21/10/09.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.3 gave the Complainant the details of the flight dtd.21/10/09 but when the Complainant cross checked the same on internet it was found that the connecting flights were not confirmed by the South African Airways. The Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party No.3 about it, who then said that their might be some mistake by his booking staff and he will try again and get the next flight dtd.23/10/09.  According to the Complainant, thereafter he used to visit the office of the Opposite Party No.1 and used to seat their till it was closing time but the Opposite Party No.3 every time used to say that he is not able to give correct information and said that he will try to the next flight for the next week. 

13)      According to the Complainant, on 23/10/09, he decided to contact another travel agency simultaneously for getting the said air tickets.  He again contacted Cox and King India Pvt. Ltd. for the air tickets Mumbai–La Paz-Mumbai by South African Airways. The said company immediately informed the Complainant that the air tickets are available for the South African Airlines flight dtd.27/10/09 and was asked to pay full payment of Rs.1,76,734/- to book the air tickets immediately.  According to the Complainant, he was not having the required funds with him.  He took loan from R.S. Padhi to pay for the air tickets and obtained a Demand Draft of Rs.3,53,468/- (Rs.1,76,734/- for the Complainant himself and Rs.1,76,734/- for Raju Belgaonkar) and paid to Cox and Kings Ltd. to book the air tickets for the flight 27/10/09.  It is alleged that as the aforesaid tickets were booked at a short notice of just 3 days before the departure date, the Complainant had to pay an additional amount of Rs.44,776/- more than what he had pay to Opposite Parties previously.  The Cox and Kings gave the air tickets and it was 100% confirmed by the Complainant with the South African Airways Office in Mumbai.  According to the Complainant till 24/10/09 evening the Opposite Parties were unable to get the 100% confirmed air tickets. Thus, the Complainant told the Opposite Party No.3 to refund the full amount immediately. 

14)      The Opposite Party No.3 told the Complainant that  he did not have necessary funds in the account of Opposite Party No.1 to pay and told that he will apply for refund from the South African Airways and he will return the full amount of the Complainant only after 16/11/09 when he will get back the amount from the South African Airways and refused to give the amount before the said date due to lack of funds. 

15)      The Complainant then approached to MRA Marg Police Station and narrated all the incident to Sub-Inspector Nalawade and informed as to how due to the negligence of the Opposite Party the Complainant had to miss the schedule flight the La Paz Bolivia.  The Sub-Inspector Nalawade called Opposite Party No.3 and asked the Opposite Party No.3 regarding the refund of the full amount. The Opposite Party No.3 agreed to pay the Complainant that he would pay the same without any deductions. The Opposite Party No.3 said that he will give a part payment of Rs.50,000/- by cheque on 27/10/09 at 3.00 p.m. and balance amount of Rs.2,14,234/- for the complainant himself and Raju Belgaonkar on 17/11/09 after getting the refund from the South African Airways Mumbai Office.  On 27/10/09 the Opposite Party No.3 gave a cheque of Rs.50,000/- dtd.31/10/09 bearing No.770121 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, P.M. Road, Mumbai -23 Branch.  The said cheque was deposited in Bank on 31/10/09 but it was dishonored.  The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party No.3 and asked him to give bank draft for the same amount and told that he would no longer accept cheques for the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Party No.3 asked the Complainant to collect the draft on 05/11/09 at 4.00 p.m.  On the said date when he contacted the Opposite Parties it was told that they did not have sufficient fund and asked the Complainant to come on 09/11/09.  On 9/11/09 again the Opposite Party No.3 told the Complainant for want of sufficient funds he is unable to give draft and called on 10/11/09.  On 12/11/09 the Opposite Party No.3 told the Complainant that he is not able to get clear balance of Rs.50,000/- and therefore, he will give draft of Rs.10,000/- and will make other drafts as soon as he would get funds in his bank account.  On 12/11/09 the Complainant received draft of Rs.10,000/- from Opposite Party No.3 who also told the Complainant that they will give the full payment of balance amount of Rs.1,27,117/- per person on 17/11/09 i.e. after getting the refund from the concerned airline. On 17/11/2009, on approaching by the Complainant to the office of Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.3 informed that they have received refund from the airlines but he will give only a bank draft of Rs.40,000/- on 18/11/09 and the balance amount will be given after checking with his boss i.e. Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 put forth their difficulties. The Complainant has also explained as to how he has suffered metal torture because of improper services provided by the Opposite Parties.  Then on 22/11/09, after telephonic talk with Opposite Party No.3 the Complainant received an official e-mail for the Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.3 as below –

            “As per out telephonic discussion we have agreed to deduct Rs.1,500/- from your total payments towards courier damages.  As per today’s balance outstanding is 2,52,734/-.”

            The copy of the said e-mail is annexure ‘C-4’.

16)      It is submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid undertaking given by the Opposite Party the payment schedule was not followed by the Opposite Parties.  Many cheques issued to the Complainant were dishonored repeatedly for different reasons and like insufficient funds.  According to the Complainant, 25/11/09 to 18/03/2010 the Opposite Party gave the total refund of only Rs.85,000/- (Rs.42,500/- for the Complainant and Rs.42,500/- for Raju Belgaonkar).  According to the Complainant between 31/10/09 to 28/05/2010 the Opposite Parties gave four cheques amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-, (Rs.55,000/- for the Complainant and Rs.55,000/- for Raju Belgaonkar) which were dishonored for insufficient funds.  The Copies of it are annexure ‘C-5’. 

17)      According to the Complainant in July, 2010, Mr. Daya Shankar Patel, Prop. of Opposite Party No.1 expired due to ill health.  After his demise the business is looked after by his sons and his daughter.  After the demise of the owner; the Opposite Party No.3 informed that they cannot issue payment by cheque from the current account of the Opposite Party No.1 and they have to open a new account with Punjab National Bank, Fort Brach and he will be able to issue the payment by cheques to the Complainant only after they would open a new current account.  The Opposite Party for that purpose requested the Complainant to convince and existing Punjab National Bank Account Holder to give their reference to the said bank.  The Complainant then requested his friend R.S. Padhi as he had current account in the said bank of their firm Padhi Traders at Borivali East Branch.  Accordingly he agreed to give his reference to Punjab National Bank for opening a new current account and singed the necessary documents.  It is alleged that even after opening new current account the Opposite Parties did not issue any payment by cheque but they started paying small amounts by cash.  According to the Complainant from 18/11/2010 till 05/06/2010 the Opposite Parties made a total payment of only Rs.30,000/- by cash in four installments of Rs.5,000/- each and one cheque amounting to Rs.10,000/-.  As per the Complainant till 20/09/2011, the Opposite Parties have paid total amount of Rs.1,15,000/- by way of cheques and by way of cash (Rs.57,500/- for the Complainant and Rs.57,500/- for Raju Belgaonkar). According to the Complainant till the date of filing the complaint the total due from the Opposite Parties are Rs.74,617/- annexure ‘C-6’ are the copies of proof of the said payment by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.  

18)      It is submitted that the Opposite Parties are not serious in refunding the balance amount.  They are adopting dilatory tactic.  The Complainant has to keep calling and visiting the Opposite Parties for getting the payment, but every time for one or other reason they did not pay the balance amount.  In the last 18 months prior to filing of the complaint out of the total amount of Rs.1,32,117/- due to the Complainant the Opposite Parties have refunded only Rs.57,500/-. The Opposite Parties have no intention to pay the full amount to the Complainant immediately.  It is submitted that as there is deficiency in service of non payment of the dues the Opposite Parties are liable to dealt with for unfair trade practice adopted by them.  The complainant has prayed the Opposite Parties be directed to reimburse Rs.79,617/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment to the Opposite Parties till realization of the same.  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay the Complainant compensation of Rs.44,617/- alongwith 18% interest from November, 2009 for the additional amount paid for booking new tickets.  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.1 Lac towards compensation for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to deficiency in service and incompetence of the Opposite Parties.  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay cost of Rs.30,000/- as legal and other incidental expenses incurred for his proceedings.       

19)      The Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence, written argument.  The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have refused to accept the notices issued against them.  The complaint therefore, proceeded against Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 as ex-parte.  We heard the arguments of Ld.Advocate Smt. Rashmi Manne, for the Complainant.  We have perused the documents relied by the Complainant filed alongwith the complaint.

 20)      On perusal of the documents relied by the Complainant i.e. Annexure ‘C-1’.  It appears that the said documents are not pertaining to the payment made by the Complainant.  The receipts of Annexure ‘C’ show that the payment was received from M/s. Ritz Fashion by the Opposite Party No.1 and not from the Complainant.  In the said receipts there is no mention whether the payment mentioned in the said receipts was received by the Opposite Party No.1 from M/s. Ritz Fasions on behalf of the Complainant.  Annexure ‘C-4’ is addressed to Mr. Rajendra Padhi and not to the Complainant.  The cheques which were issued by the Opposite Party No.1 are also not issued in favour of the Complainant but the same are in favour of M/s. Ritz Fashions which are Annexure ‘C-5’ colly.  The vouchers for refund placed on record as Annexure ‘C-6’ are issued in favour of M/s. Ritz Fashions. In voucher dated 17/03/2011, it is mentioned that it is issued in favour of M/s. Ritz Fashions (Rajendra Padhi) and not in favour of the Complainant.  The cheque dtd.29/06/2011 is also issued in favour of M/s. Ritz Fashions.  The Ld.Advocate for the Complainant in her argument did not explain how the said documents are related to the Complainant.  It is pertinent to note that in the pleading of the complaint, in the affidavit of the Complainant and written argument filed by the Complainant there is no mention how the said documents were issued in the name of M/s. Ritz Fashion and Mr. Rajendra Padhi.  In all the aforesaid documents there is no mention whether the Complainant is Proprietor of M/s. Ritz Fashion and though he made payment to the Opposite Party No.1 in that capacity and as such, the documents filed alongwith the complaint were issued by the Opposite Party No.1 in the name of M/s. Ritz Fashion.  In view of the aforesaid discussion and on the basis of the documents relied by the Complainant we have come to the conclusion that the Complainant has failed to prove that he is consumer of the Opposite Party No.1 as defined under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.  The Complainant in our opinion has failed to prove that he had paid any charges or fees to the Opposite Party No.1 to avail the service of Opposite Party No.1 as alleged in the complaint.  The Complainant has also failed to prove that the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to provide any service to the Complainant by accepting the charges from him.  The Complainant has also failed to prove that there was any relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 as consumer and service provider.  The case made out by the Complainant regarding the transactions alleged by the Complainant in the complaint and affidavit of him also cannot be relied upon as the Complainant has not produced the copies of the air tickets for Mumbai-China-Mumbai-La Paz.  The copies of the visas alleged to have been obtained by the Complainant. The Complainant has not placed on record any documents showing that he had made payment to Cox and Kings India Pvt. Ltd. for getting visa for China and for air tickets obtained through them for Mumbai-La Paz-Mumbai.  As the Complainant has not produced the concern supporting documents to prove that the facts alleged in the complaint had taken place between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties and there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  In our view on the basis of the documents placed on record alongwith the complaint it cannot be said that the Complainant has any locus standi to file the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the basis of the alleged facts we therefore, hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any relationship between him as consumer and Opposite Parties as service provider.  In our view, none of the document relied by the Complainant is executed by the Opposite Parties in favour of the Complainant and that too regarding the facts alleged in the complaint.  In our view on the basis of documents relied by the Complainant, he has failed to prove any cause of action arose against the Opposite Parties for grant of any reliefs in his favour.   In the result the following order is passed –

O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.315/2011 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.        Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.

Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

          (Shri. S.S. Patil)                                                        (Shri.S.M. Ratnakar)

                    Hon’ble  Member                                                         Hon’ble President