Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/768/2011

Sathishkumar,Proprietor,Ero Travels National & Abroad Tourist - Complainant(s)

Versus

Seshan & 8 others - Opp.Party(s)

A.Thiyagarajan

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                        THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                MEMBER

 

                               F.A.768/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No.104/2010 dated 6.6.2011  on the file of the DCDRF, Salem]

 

Dated this the 11^th day of MARCH, 2015

 

Sathish Kumar

Proprietor, Ero-Travels National & Abroad Tourist

43, Mechari Complex  

2^nd Floor, Rayal Theatre Road opp.

Erode 638 011                                         ..Appellant/opp.party

                                          Vs

1.Seshan

S/o (Late) V.Ananthakrishnan

Door No. 6/18, 7^th Cross,

Maravaneri Extension

Salem 636 007

 

2. T.V.G. Sari

S/o Santharaman

 

3.   V.Radha,

W/o Seshan

 

4.   S. Usha

N.Sundarajan

 

5. S.Vimala

W/o R.Sampathkumar

 

6. Sudamani

W/o Sreenivasaramanujam

 

7. C.Rajalakshmi

W/o (late Ananthakrishnan)

 

8. Srirangasai

S/o (late Ananthakrishnan)

9. Harini

W/o (late Ananthakrishnan)

   

Rep by S.Selvam, Chairman

TamilNadu Consumer Public Rights

Vigilance Committee                                        ..Respondents/complainants

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party      : M/s A.Thiyagarajan

Counsel for the Respondents/complainants : M/s S.Sivakumar (R.1 to R.9)

 

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 4.2.2015  and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Salem in C.C. 104/2010 dated 6.6.2011 allowing the complaint.

 

2.     The case of the complainants is that they planned to join the tour arranged by the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for which the opposite party issued receipts on 13.3.2009 and the date of commencement of tour was 13.4.2009 and on coming to know that the Helicopter facility was not available covering some distance, they dropped the idea of going on tour and so they demanded return of money from the opposite party. The opposite party did not come forward to return the money which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

 

3.      According to the opposite party, the tour was cancelled at the instance of the complainants and as per the terms and conditions in the Brochure, the complainants were not entitled to refund of the money and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

4.      The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint.  

 

5.      Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

 

6.        It is pertinent to note that the District Forum has settled the issue of jurisdiction of the District Forum and the contention of the opposite party that the District Forum, Salem had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, is untenable.

 

7.       It is relevant to note that the terms and conditions of the opposite party regarding cancellation of tour program and refund of the money paid are found in Ex B.1, where as those conditions are not found in Ex.A.1 Brochure issued to the complainants and therefore the terms and conditions relied on by the opposite parties will not bind the complainants.

 

8.         We have to further note that the complainants decided not to join the tour since they came to know from reliable sources that the Helicopter facility was dis-continued for covering some distance and in these circumstances, the opposite party failed to refund the money which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 

9.        The District Forum has passed an order directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 30,000/-, received from the complainants excluding the Railway ticket cancellation charges and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to each of the 8 (Eight) complainants as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-.

 

10.        As per Ex.B.11 series, the cancellation fee for the tickets comes to Rs.240 + 120 + 240 +120 = Rs.720/-.

 

11.         We feel that the award of compensation for mental agony is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and we are not inclined to award compensation for mental agony.

           In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the award of compensation for mental agony and directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.29,280/- (Rs. 30,000/- minus cancellation charges of Rs.720/-) to the complainants and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-.

 

             No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                            J. JAYARAM                             R.REGUPATHI

        MEMBER                              JUDICIAL MEMBER                         PRESIDENT