Respondent had booked for tour i.e. ‘European Experience’ with the agent of the petitioner against a total cost of Rs.1,40,000/- per person and deposited Rs.40,000/- initially by cheque on 21.1.2007. Balance was to be paid after issuance of the vizas. According to the respondent/complainant, the passport and other documents were given to the agent of the petitioner for processing. However, after waiting fro a long time, when the complainant did not hear from the Respondent No.2 (OP 2 before the District Forum), he enquired from Respondent No.2 and came to know that visas could not be arranged for the scheduled tour. Petitioner offered to arrange the seats for the tour in the next year. The complainant cancelled the proposal and requested the Respondent No.2 to return the passports and the money deposited. Passports were returned but the amount deposited was not returned. Thus, being aggrieved, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner entered appearance and filed its written statement and denied the allegation that the complainant had handed over the requisite documents, i.e., passport, etc. to Respondent No.2. That the petitioner had sent a E-mail asking the complainant to send the requisite documents but in spite of that respondents did not send the documents because of which visa application could not be submitted. That the allegations made in the complainant were incorrect. That as per the agreement entered into between the parties, the amount deposited was non-refundable. District Forum rejected the defence taken by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of encashment of the cheque i.e. 23.1.2007 till payment. Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Respondent had deposited the sum of Rs.40,000/- with the petitioner which has been ordered to be refunded. Without going into the merits of the dispute, we decline to interfere with the order because the amount involved is only Rs.40,000/-. Cost of litigation would be much more than the amount involved in the case. Petitioner may be in a position to bear the litigation expenses but the respondent may not be in a position to do so. Keeping this fact in mind, we dismiss this Revision Petition. The order passed by the State Commission be not taken as a precedent for future reference. |
