CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.489/2011

SH. ANIL KUMAR GARG

R/O C-106, PARADISE APARTMENTS,

40, I.P. EXTENSION, PATPARGANJ,

DELHI-110092

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

M/S SHREE RAJ TRAVELS & TOURS LIMITED,

DELHI BRANCH OFFICE:

A-25/4, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

AT PRESENT:-

421/426 DEVIKA TOWER,

NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019

………….. RESPONDENT

Date of Order:25.05.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that OP launched a scheme of tour to Europe named as Amazing Europe Tour Scheme  As per the terms of the scheme, Tour for Europe was initially booked for 10 days scheduled to departure on 17.05.208, further agreed to be extended to 24.05.2008.  Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,15,625/- with OP under the above stated scheme vide cheques dated 28.01.2008, 16.03.2008 and 09.05.2008.  As the visa was not available for the stipulated departure dated 24.05.2008, complainant had no option other than to cancel his trip and he informed OP vide email dated 14.05.2008.  In response to the email dated 14.05.2008, OP vide their mail dated 14.05.2008 made another offer to complainant to tour Europe for a longer duration of 15 days by paying extra cost.  The tour was scheduled to depart on 1^st and 3^rd June 2008.  Complainant accepted the offer of OP through his email dated 15.05.2008.  Complainant further asked OP to confirm the time and place of visa interview and the exact date of departure to enable complainant and his wife to timely inform her office regarding the Europe tour and get the leave sanctioned for the stipulated period.  OP did not respond to the mail.  Complainant sent another email on 22.05.2008 to confirm the dates but OP again failed to respond.  Resultantly due to non action on the part of OP, the Europe tour could not be materialized and OP failed to provide the services to complainant inspite of receiving the huge amount of money from complainant.  Under these circumstance complainant decided to get the refund of the money and applied for refund of Rs.515625/-.  Considering the demand of complainant, OP issued two cheques worth Rs.3,96,513/- to complainant but the said cheques were bounced.  Accordingly this complaint was filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.  During the pendency of the complaint, OP handed over a bank draft of Rs.3,96,513/- and complaint was withdrawn by complainant.  Thereafter a legal notice was served on 24.04.2010 for a refund of outstanding amount of Rs.1,191,12/-.  The notice was not complied by OP hence this complaint is filed.  It is prayed that OP be directed to pay to complainant a sum of Rs.1,19,112/- alongwith Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation. 

OP in the reply took the pea that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The due amount was returned to complainant and the present complaint is not maintainable.  It is stated that it was the complainant who had changed his mind and cancelled the trip.  In these circumstances, OPs were entitled to retention and forfeiture of the registration money which amounts to Rs.60,000/- in the present case @ Rs.15000/- each.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

We have heard AR for complainant and carefully perused the record.

It is significant to note that in fact the cause of action arose on 14.05.2008 when complainant sought refund of the amount.  However, the present complaint has been filed on 21.11.2011.  The same is barred by limitation u/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. 

It is further significant to note that the cheque No.869458 for Rs.2 lakhs and cheque No.869459 for Rs.1,96,513/- were received by Sh. Manjit Singh towards full and final refund of the tour amount is evident from booking slip No.9097 placed on the record.  Admittedly, it is proved that those cheques were towards full and final refund of tour amount and that is the reason that complainant has not filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act rather has filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for bouncing of those cheques.  During pendency of these cheques, this amount was paid by bank draft dated 26.03.2010.  Even thereafter this complaint was filed after 1½ years i.e. on 21.04.2011.  As already stated, cause of action arose in 2008, the present complaint is time barred. Furthermore the documents placed on record clearly shows that on 19.03.2009, a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been received by complainant towards part payment of the refund amount.  Thereafter these two cheques were received towards full and final payment.  The present complaint is barred by limitation.  Initially amount of Rs.60,000/- was received on 19.03.2009 and thereafter two cheques for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.1,96,513/- were received towards full and final payment. 

The complaint is not maintainable hence is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

         (D.R. TAMTA)                                                             (A.S. YADAV)

             MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT