DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 02 of  2024

 

Sri Tushar Kanti Chakma,

S/O- Late Jayanta Kumar Chakma,

Ujan Abhoynagar, Agartala, 

P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Abhoynagar,

West Tripura, Pin- 799005.

 

-VERSUS-

 

Sri Satyendra Debnath,

S/O- Late Debendra Debnath,

Madhya Bhubanban, 

P.O. Paschim Bhubanban,

Pin-799002, Owner of 

M/S Ankita Travels,

Agartala, Tripura.

 

Present Address:-

Barjala, Main Road, 

Opposite to Ramnagar 

Police Out post. ..........Opposite Party.

 

   ________PRESENT__________

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAUL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

For  the  O.P. : Sri Loknath Datta,

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Tushar Kanti Chakma here-in-after after called the 'Complainant' has filed this complaint against Sri Satyendra Debnath, the owner of M/S Ankita Travels here-in-after called the 'O.P.' alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

1.1 The complainant for traveling Dubai from Kolkata on 11th November, 2023 purchased 3 air tickets from the O.P. on 25th October and also purchased 3 air tickets for his return journey  from Dubai  to Agartala via Kolkata from the O.P. Apart from the complainant other travelers were Aparna Chakma and Mohuya Chakma,  the wife and sister respectively of the complainant.

1.2 On 11th November, 2023 while they reached Kolkata by air and reported to the Air India counter, the Air India Authority informed the complainant that return journey from Dubai to Kolkata  was not confirmed as the O.P. had cancelled the air tickets of the complainant from Dubai  to Kolkata. The complainant was shocked to know this fact as the O.P. has cancelled  the confirmed return journey tickets beyond the knowledge of the complainant.

1.3 From Kolkata Airport the complainant tried to contact the O.P. over phone but to no good. At that juncture, the daughter of the complainant who was staying at Dubai re-booked 3 confirmed tickets for the complainant from Dubai to Kolkata vide journey dated 22nd November, 2023.

1.4 The Complainant after his return from Dubai approached Ramnagar Police Out Post who called the O.P. and the O.P. had no valid answer, rather, handed over  a bank cheque of IDBI Bank for Rs.2,14,000/- on assurance that on 10th December, 2023 that cheque can be encashed.

1.5 Accordingly on 11th December, 2023 the complainant deposited the cheque with the Bank which was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund.

1.6 Hence, this complaint claiming refund of Rs.2,14,000/- along with compensation and cost. 

 

2. The O.P. submitted written objection wherein the O.P. rectified the type mistake of the complaint petition that travelling tickets were purchased for journey on 11th November, 2023 from Kolkata to Dubai but not from Dubai to Kolkata. 

2.1 The O.P. pleaded that he did not provide confirmed ticket from Dubai to Kolkata to the complainant. He refused the fact that he assured the complainant that the cheque could be encashed on 10th December, 2023. The O.P. further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction as only a case U/S 138 NI Act, is maintainable in the Court of Learned CJM. 

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit along with documents i.e., the air tickets, Bank cheque issued by the O.P., return memo by which cheque was dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank.

 

3.1 The O.P. was supposed to submit evidence on 15.06.2024 but O.P. was absent without step. On 15.06.2024 the case was adjourned till 02.07.2024 to argue the case with liberty to O.P. to submit evidence, if any .

4. The O.P. submitted evidence on affidavit.

5. Argument was heard on 02.07.2024 from both the sides.

 

6. The complainant has submitted air tickets from Kolkata to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Dubai on 11th November, 2023 showing status as confirmed. Similarly, the complainant submitted air tickets issued by the O.P. from Dubai to Kolkata. Therefore, the pleading of the O.P. that he did not issue confirmed tickets to the complainant for travelling from Dubai to Kolkata  has been proved to be false.

 

6.1 Further the O.P. has issued a cheque in the name of the complainant for Rs.2,14,000/- and the cheque was duly deposited by complainant with the Punjab National Bank which was returned on 12.12.2023 on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Copy of the cheque and return memo have also been submitted by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has sufficiently  proved his case against the O.P. and the O.P. is hugely guilty of deficiency in service. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Commission as being in addition to other action, it can not be said that only criminal case U/S 138 of NI Act, is maintainable against the O.P. but at the same time a case claiming refund of this amount with compensation on the ground of deficiency in service is also very much, maintainable before this Commission. 

 

6.2 Although the O.P. handed over a cheque to complainant for a sum of Rs.2,14,000/-, but we find that the complainant purchased air tickets for three passenger for Rs.45,399/- for travelling to Kolkata–New Delhi and New Delhi-Dubai and return tickets for Rs.70,035/- for travelling from Dubai to Kolkata. And the complainant could not avail the journey from Kolkata-New Delhi and New Delhi-Kolkata as the complainant did not have return tickets because of cancellation of the return tickets by the O.P. beyond the knowledge of the complainant.

 

6.3 Thus, the complainant suffered monetary loss for Rs.45,399/- + Rs. 70,035/- = Rs.1,15,434/- only which the O.P. is liable to refund to the complainant.

 

6.4 In addition to that the O.P. is liable to compensate the complainant because of his mischievous act of cancellation of return ticket beyond the knowledge of the complainant. Thus, considering the consequence suffering of the complainant the O.P. is liable to pay  a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant which is inclusive of litigation cost.

 

 

 

7. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. shall pay the sum of Rs.1,15,434/- to the complainant with interest @ 7.5%  P.A. from 11.11.2023 i.e., the date of journey to Dubai till the date of actual payment and shall pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for this huge deficiency of service. 

6. The case stands disposed of.

7. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the parties.

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAUL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.