- Prabir Kr. Chanda,
147, Baghajatin Place, Kolkata-86. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Samit Sanyal,
Proprietor of Avian Holyday,
At Dakshinapan Shopping Complex,
C/o Ganga Business Centre, 2 - Gariahat Road (South),
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-68 and
Residential address: 178/1, P.K. Guha Road, Kolkata-28. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 12 Dated 30/04/2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant one of the group members of Far East Tour (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia) which was supposed to be operated by o.p. Complainant saw advertisement in daily newspaper and tour was scheduled to start on 30.10.12 instead of 19.10.12 from Kolkata at the cost of Rs.1,23,800/- for two persons including wife of the complainant. But o.p. cancelled the tour programme without informing the complainant and complainant asked for return of money and passport and o.p. returned passport and issued an account payee cheque which was dishonoured. Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte as against o.p.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the evidence of the complainant and documents in particular and we find that o.p. has not entered his appearance in this case. But upon careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we find that there is no bank statement to establish and/or to prove that the cheque as offered by o.p. was bounced. Complainant also lodged complaint before the O.C. Lake P.S. vide annex-D annexed with the complaint petition that the complainant lodged a complaint in respect of fraud case against the o.p. But there is no scrap of paper in respect of FRT issued by the police authority.
In view of the absence of the above documents it is not clear that the cheque has been bounced which was issued by the o.p. to the complainant.
Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the deficiency on the part of the o.p. has not been established even if the case has been proceeding ex parte.
As such, the complaint case is rejected ex parte without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
