30.12.2015

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          The instant appeal under Section 15 of the C. P. Act, 1986 has been filed challenging the judgment and order No. 18 dated 06.12.2013 in C.D.F.Unit No. -/I/Case No. 234/2012 of the Ld. District Forum, Unit – I, Kolkata allowing the complaint case on contest with cost against the Appellant/O.P. who was directed to refund Rs.46,500/- to the Respondents/Complainants and cancel the memberships of the Respondents/Complainants.  The Appellant/O.P. was further directed to pay to the Respondents/Complainants a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and mental agony and a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- only within 45 days from the date of communication of the impugned judgment and order, failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Respondents/Complainants till full realization. 

          The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Agreement dated 07.01.2012 was entered into by and between the Respondents/Complainants and M/s. Country Vacations, a division of Country Club – I Limited, being the Appellant/O.P. of the address given under 1 of page No. 1 of the complaint petition.  The Respondents/Complainants paid Rs.23,500/- in cash and Rs.23,000/- by cheque, total amount being Rs.46,500/-, after being allegedly assured by the representatives of the Appellant/O.P. Company that as per the said Agreement, the Respondents/Complainants shall be able to avail themselves of the facilities of services and staying facilities at different resorts under the disposal of the Appellant/O.P. Company at different locations in the country including Bishnupur in Bankura District.

          The Respondents/Complainants accordingly planned to visit Bishnupur on 21.01.2012 but, the Appellant/O.P. subsequently verbally told the Respondents/Complainants that the Appellant/O.P. Company does not have any resort/staying place at Bishnupur.  The tour programme of the Respondents/Complainants was accordingly cancelled.

          The Respondents/Complainants, being frustrated decided not to continue their memberships with the said company and wanted to get refund of the deposited amount.  Accordingly, they filed complaint before the Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Government of West Bengal.  In three tripartite meetings under the aegis of the said Directorate, no effective solution to the issues could be arrived at because of the non-participation in the meeting by the Appellant/O.P. although the representative on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants was present on all occasions. 

          Finding no solution forthcoming, the Respondents/Complainants filed the aforementioned complaint before the Ld. District Forum which passed the impugned judgment and order.  In the instant appeal the said impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum has been challenged.

          Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/O.P. and the authorized representative of the Respondents/Complainants.  The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. admitted the fact that the amount claimed to have been deposited by the Respondents/Complainants was actually deposited by them on the date of signing of the Agreement, but denied the fact that the papers related to Agreement were sent to the Respondents/Complainants through e-mail.  The Ld. Advocate denied that no verbal assurance regarding availability of staying place/resort was at all made to the Respondents/Complainants by the Appellant/O.P.  It was submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order without application of mind and based only on hearsay evidence.

          Heard the authorized representative on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants.  It was submitted that the representatives on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. constantly pursued them for entering into the Agreement.  The Agreement was signed at the house of the Respondents/Complainants under pressure when no such list of tourist destination having tourism facilities including suitable places for stay was given by the Appellant/O.P.  The said representatives mentioned that visit can be made at places all over India and Sri Lanka.  The representatives of the Appellant/O.P. affirmed the availability of resort/staying place at Bishnupur where the Respondents/Complainants intended to visit but, subsequently the Appellant/O.P. divulged that the Appellant/O.P. does not have any resort or staying place at Bishnupur.  In fact, the name of Bishnipur did not figure in the brochure supplied afterwards as a tourist destination having staying facilities.

          The authorized representative of the Respondents/Complainants went on to submit that the Respondents/Complainants had reposed reliance on the Appellant/O.P. but was cheated by the Appellant/O.P.  It was informed that the Appellant/O.P. received the money through cheque and cash in “kachcha” receipts.  The authorized representative of the Respondents/Complainants submitted further that the Ld. District Forum, on prolonged hearing of argument and careful perusal of papers, passed the impugned judgment and order which should be affirmed.

          Perused the papers on record.  The Appellant/O.P. admittedly received the amount to the tune of Rs.46,500/- from the Respondents/Complainants.  It reveals on perusal of records that the list of places having resorts/staying places, as envisaged in the brochure does not contain the name of the site “Bishnupur”.  The claim of the Appellant/O.P. to the effect that the Respondents/Complainants signed the Agreement on perusal of the brochure knowing it very well that the place “Bishnupur” was not a listed destination of the company, appears to be farfetched.   The reference to the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (1) CPR 204 (NC) [Dr. Aditya Prasad Roy – vs. – Mr. Suresh Mahalingam, CEF and Managing Director, TATA AIG & Ors.] made by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/O.P. appears to be in relation to a fact not squarely identical to that of the instant case. 

          The facts and circumstances narrated about led the Bench to believe that the brochure showing listed places of tourist destination was not supplied to the Respondents/Complainants at the time of signing the Agreement as claimed by the Respondents/Complainants who filed the complaint case on 18.05.2012 that is only after four months from the date of contemplated tour scheduled on 20.01.2012 and that too, after undergoing a long process for amicable solution including three unfruitful meetings, last being on 10.04.2012, under the aegis of the Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Government of West Bengal.

          In view of above, it appears that the argument put forward by the Respondents/Complainants outweigh that of the Appellant/O.P.  The Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. 

          The appeal stands dismissed.  The impugned judgment and order is affirmed.  We pass no order as to costs.