^{STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,}

^{UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH}

Sh. Amritpal Singh Gill S/o S. Harbans Singh Gill R/o H.No.1558, C.G.W.B Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh.

                                     ^Versus

1. SOTC, a Division of KOUNI Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147-148, First Floor, Above LG Showroom, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. KOUNI Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147-148, First Floor, Above LG showroom, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3. Ankush Dutta, Sales Executive, SOTC, a Division of KOUNI Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147-148, First Floor, Above LG Showroom, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

^{.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.}

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

Argued by^{:Sh. Aman Singla, Advocate for the appellant.}

Service of respondent No.3 already dispensed with vide order dated 4.6.2014.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

“9]     

10]     

2.               

3.               

4.               

5.               

6.                

7.              

8.          

9.        The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.

10.              

11.               

12.              

13.              

14.              

15.              

16.              The Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, conceded that the booking amount deposited by the complainant was in the sum of Rs.42,000/-. It was further submitted that the District Forum awarded interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount apart from litigation cost. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/complainant was not entitled to any compensation or enhancement in the litigation costs.

17.              After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from record that the appellant/complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.32,000/- on 1.6.2013 and 4.6.2013 vide receipts, Annexures C-6 and C-7 respectively. While the case of the appellant/complainant is that he was informed by respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that his tour would commence from 19.6.2013, he was suddenly informed on 16.06.2013 by respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, without disclosing any reasons, that the tour was cancelled. The appellant/complainant also averred that despite deposit of Rs.42,000/-, respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not apply for Visa. This contention of the appellant/complainant is fortified from the documentary evidence, placed on record, as Annexures C-10 (Colly.) and C-12 (Colly.), the perusal of which, reveals that Visas to Singapore (E-Visa) and Malasiya were issued after respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 cancelled the tour, booked by the appellant/complainant, with them. The case of respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is that the appellant/complainant was informed that the booking from 19.06.2013 was tentative and the same could be shifted and that they had already refunded the booking amount to the appellant/complainant, in cash, but he did not sign the acknowledgement receipt. The assertion of respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as rightly held by the District Forum, is not supported by any cogent and convincing evidence. The District Forum, thus, after considering the evidence, rightly held respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 deficient, in rendering service, by not applying for Visa and not refunding the booking amount to the appellant/complainant. It is a fact, duly born on record, that the appellant/complainant had paid a sum of Rs.42,000/- to respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Since respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were deficient, in rendering service, the appellant/complainant was entitled to the refund of booking amount of Rs.42,000/- paid by him alongwith interest from the respective dates of deposit. The District Forum, however, erred in ordering refund of only Rs.32,000/-, instead of Rs.42,000/-, actually paid by the appellant/complainant, to respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. In our considered opinion, the appellant/complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.42,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from respective dates of deposit. In the face of facts and circumstances of the case, interest @9% per annum, is adequate compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, which the appellant/complainant underwent. Thus, the order of the District Forum needs to be modified to the extent indicated above. The cost of litigation, awarded by the District Forum, to the tune of Rs.5,000/- is also just and adequate.

18.              

19.              

(i)        Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.42,000/- to the appellant/complainant, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit.

(ii)