DATE OF FILING                    :     18.11.2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      10.12.2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     29-12-2014.

1. Mrs. Manju Hati,

   wife of Sri Sisir Kumar Hati,

2. Mr. Sisir Kumar Hati,

son of late Biswanath Hati,

both are residing at 29/8/1/3, Narasingha Dutta Road,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra, District Howrah,

PIN 711101…………………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.

• Versus -

   

  1. Kuoni Travel ( India ) Pvt. Ltd.,

     at Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

     Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400013.

2. SOTC,

Branch Office being represented by its

Sales Manager, viz. Sourav Mondal,

having its office at 9/1, Harduttrai  Chamaria  Road,

District Howrah,

PIN 711101. ………………………………………………….OPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 50,000/- received as advance for the ongoing tour to Australia and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of receiving the advance money of Rs. 50,000/- out of the total package ofRs. 2,11,500/- for the ongoing tour toAustralia dated 05-10-2013 caused unnecessary harassment to the complainants who are senior citizens and expressed their inability to conduct the tour.

    

2. The o.ps. in their written version contended interalia that the group tour to Australia primarily failed for lack of proper group; that Rs. 50,000/- was refunded to the complainants through cheque which was not encashed by the complainants; that minimum number of passengers could not be collected for the proposed tour; that the complainants were informed that the tour may be cancelled for lack of proper passengers.

3.        Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

1. Whether the complainants areentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

    

    

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

    

   4. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. Admittedly the o.p. company received Rs. 50,000/- from the complainants as an advance for 10 days Australia package on 04-09-2013, the total package being Rs. 2,11,500/-. The tour was to commence on 5^th October, 2013. Accordingly as per the requisition of the o.p., the complainants hurriedly arranged the three category of documents and the rest portion of the package money by way of withdrawing premature fixed deposit. But unfortunately the o.p. no. 2 maintained studied silence till 05.9.2013. Thereafter till 13.9.2013 the complainants visited the office of the o.p. no. 2 on several occasions. But the o.p. no. 2 did not inform if the tour was to commence on 5^th October, 2013. On 14.9.2013 the o.p. no. 2 through telephone informed that they were unable to finalize the departure and asked them to wait till 16^th September, 2013. When no response came from the o.p. no. 2, the complainants finding no other alternative asked for refund of the advance money.

5. Subsequently the o.p. refunded the sum of Rs. 50,000/- vide their cheque no. 053457 dated 27.9.2013 which was not encashed by the complainants on the ground that the o.p. had prior knowledge that they would not conduct the tour on the stipulated date. It was their duty to inform the complainants at least 15 days ahead so that they could contact other international tour companies.

6. Most unfortunate phase is that the o.p. admitted that they conducted the tour on the same date i.e., 5^th October, 2013 with other party ( list filed ).Then why and for what best reasons the complainants were deprived ? The complainants are senior citizens. They had to plan their tour sufficiently ahead relying on the suitable date. Tour toAustralia is not a journey to Burdwan or Khargpur which can be arranged on short notice. In our considered view the o.p.no. 2 is responsible for frustrating the dream of the complainants at their whims. The complainants accepted the date of journey provided by the o.p. as it suited their temperament and family plan. Refund of the advance money cannot act as solatium to them. We are, therefore, of further view that the arbitrary act of the o.p. no. 2 shall be handsomely balanced with adequate compensation. This is, therefore, a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 393  of 2013 ( HDF 393 of 2013 )  be and the same is   allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. jointly or severally  be directed to refund the advance money of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants by issuing a cheque afresh within 30 days from the date of this order.   

      The o.ps. jointly or severally be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants for causing mental pain and utter frustration together with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs within the period as mentioned above, failing the total sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- (  Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 5,000/- ) shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 10 per cent per annum from the date of this order till full satisfaction.   

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.