Tripura

West Tripura

CC/16/2016

Sri Tapan Ch. Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Rajat Kanti Paul. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.C.Majumder.

27 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 16  of  2016

Sri Tapan Chandra Saha,
S/O- Late Chitta Ranjan Saha,
New Town Road, Udaipur Town,
P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur,
Udaipur, Gomati District.             .….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

Sri Rajat Kanti Pal,
Proprietor of 'The Guide',
Patient Care Service & Package Tour Solution,
Battala, Govt, Supper Market, 
Ground Floor, Block-A,Room No.23, 
Agartala, West Tripura.            ............Opposite party.

   
      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Sujit Chandra Majumdar,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P.                 : O.P. in person.
                      

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 27.05.2016

 

J U D G M E N T 
        This case was filed one Tapan Chandra Saha against Rajat Kanti Paul, Proprietor of 'The Guide', Patient Care Service & Package Tour Solution. Petitioner filed this case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service. Petitioner's case is short is that he purchased air tickets from O.P. for going to Kolkata and return. He was going to Bangalore for his treatment and treatment of his wife. On the date of departure from Agartala he went to airport. He was astonished to see that the air tickets was cancelled. O.P. without his permission cancelled the tickets. As a result petitioner had to suffer huge loss. His return ticket also could not be availed. Rail ticket also not availed. He suffered financial loss mental agony. Treatment also not done. So, he prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.2 lakhs. 

2.        O.P., Rajat Kanti Paul appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. He stated that the ticket was not purchased by the complainant but  by one Pradipta Roy for the complainant & his wife. Pradipta Roy requested him to cancell the ticket. Accordingly ticket was cancelled and after cancellation refund was made. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised we shall now determine the following points:
        (I) Whether the petitioner himself purchased the tickets and made any request for cancellation?
        (II) Whether the O.P. had any deficiency of service and therefore petitioner entitled to get compensation?
        
4.        Petitioner, Tapan Chandra Saha produced E-tickets leave application, Advocate's notice which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. Petitioner also examined one witness. 
        
5.        O.P. on the other hand examined one witness Pradipta Roy. 
6.        We have gone through the evidence given by both the parties. Now we shall determine the above points.
    
FINDINGS AND DECISION:
7.        From the perusal of the photocopy of tickets it is found that the tickets purchased for journey from Agartala to Kolkata scheduled on 22 November, 2015. Tickets were in the name of Tapan Chandra Saha and Rama Saha. Total amount of Rs.5031/- was paid as per tickets. The return ticket was on 17th December, 2015. Price of the ticket given Rs.5967/-. That ticket was not cancelled. Petitioner did not avail it. Some rail tickets are also produced which are not cancelled. Leave prayer of Tapan Chandra Saha is also given to support that he was intending to go Kolkata. O.P. on the other hand produced Pradipta Roy, the person who purchased the air tickets. Pradipta Roy in his evidence stated that on the request of Sapna Saha, mother of his friend he purchased ticket for Tapan Chandra Saha and Rama Saha. He  purchased tickets from the agency of his friend, Rajat Kanti Pal. He met Tapan Chandra Saha in the  house of his in-laws. When he handed over the tickets he requested him to purchase return tickets. Tapan Chandra Saha paid the amount and return tickets were purchased for him and his wife. On 3rd week of November he met with Tapan Chandra Saha and complainant Tapan Chadra Saha requested him to cancel the tickets purchased for going to Kolkata from Agartala. Then he told the O.P. to cancel the tickets & signed in the cancellation form. According to petitioner he himself purchased the tickets. Petitioner in the evidence stated that he purchased 2 air tickets for journey through Indigo flight. Return tickets also purchased by himself. 

8.        O.P. produced the reservation request dated 29.10.15. In that reservation request it is found that signature was given by Pradipta Roy for purchasing the tickets. Pradipta Roy also signed in another reservation request dated 29.10.15. Ticket of one Swapna Saha was also purchased by Pradipta Roy. The cancellation request was made by Pradipta Roy also for the air tickets of complainant and Rama Saha on 29.10.15. That  cancellation request form is also produced. Pradipta Roy himself also appeared and supported that on the request of Tapan Chandra Saha he cancelled the tickets for journey from Agartala to Kolkata. 

9.        On analysis of the evidence we are to find whether  Pradipta Roy is reliable or complainant himself is reliable. Pradipta Roy is supported by the owner of 'The Guide'. O.P. is not known to Tapan Chandra Saha. But Pradipta Roy is his friend who purchased 3 tickets from his agency. The photocopy of this tickets clearly support it. Cancellation was also made by Pradipta Roy. The tickets for return journey was not cancelled. Complainant could avail journey through by availing another air ticket on the next date to avail the journey by train or for return journey. These were not done by him. It is not known why he cancelled the tickets scheduled for going for treatment at Bangalore. It is also not explained by the complainant. 
    
10.        There is no denial that Pradipta Roy is the friend of the son of Swapna Saha. Swapna Saha is the sister of Tapan Chandra Saha, complainant who requested Pradipta Roy to purchase the tickets for Tapan Chandra Saha and Rama Saha and payment was made by her. Pradipta Roy cancelled the tickets on the request of Tapan Chandra Saha. Pradipta Roy  also said that the payment for return tickets was made by Tapan Chandra Saha. Those tickets were not cancelled.  

11.        From analysis of the evidence it is hard to say that the O.P. intentionally cancelled the tickets for Tapan Chandra Saha and Rama Saha without any cancellation request. Person who purchased the tickets, paid the amount is the right person who could request him for cancellation. On cancellation of the tickets the O.P. agency can not get any benefit. Commission was already received at the time of purchase of the tickets. O.P. was not benefited by cancellation. So, it is really difficult to believe that without any request from the purchaser he cancelled the tickets for no benefit only to cause loss to the  petitioner.

12.        On the analysis of the evidence we therefore, find  difficult to believe the petitioner to support that O.P. cancelled the ticket of the petitioner without any request from the purchaser. It appears that the actual purchaser was Pradipta Roy and on his request the tickets were cancelled. O.P. have no deficiency of service. Petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation. Both the points are decided accordingly. 

        In view of our above findings the case of the petitioner  has no merit and stands dismissed. 
       

                      Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA