West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/163/2014

Smt.Mousumi Mudi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Subhra Prakash Das - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Chakraborty.

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 PRESENTS : Before Ld. President : Mr. Bibekananda Pramanik.

                                     Ld. Member   :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                     Ld. Member   :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

                                               Complaint Case No.163/2014

                                                         1) Smt. Mousumi Mudi,

                                                         2) Smt. Mridula Mudi,

                                                         3) Sri Sudipta Mudi,

                                                         4) Smt. Riya Mudi,

                                                         5) Minor Miss. Mehuli Mudi.

                                                                                        ………Complainants.

Vs

                                                           Sri Subhra Prakash Das.

                                                                                                     …………..OP

 For the Complainant : Mr. Subal Chakrabarty, Advocate.

 For the O.P.                : Mr. Shirshendu Krishna Maity, Advocate.

 

                                    Judgement delivered on: - 09/07/2015

                               

JUDGEMENT

 

This is an application under Sections 11,12, 13 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The case of the complainants, in brief, is as follows:-

The Op is a travelling agent and he is doing its business at Medinipur.  The complainants are the residents of the district of Medinipur Town.  In the month of March 2013, the complainants came to know from  an advertisement published by the OP and then they showed their interest to go to a tour to Andaman organized by the OP Darshan Travels, which was scheduled to be held on and from 22/05/2013 to 28/05/2013. The total cost of the tour for the complainants were fixed at Rs.93,000/- inclusive of everything  and out of the said amount, they paid Rs.70,000/- to the OP in three installments.  A few days before the date of departure, the complainant No.2 suffered severe Cerebral attack and he had to be hospitalized immediately. Accordingly, the OP was immediately

Contd…………….P/2

 

-(2)-

informed that the complainants were cancelling the trip.  It is stated that they were assured that their entire advance amount will be refunded by the OP.  After recovery of the complainant No.2, the complainants met the OP and demanded refund of the advance money.  At that time, the OP assured them to refund the amount and asked for some more time.  Lastly, on 27/10/14, 29/10/14 and 30/10/14, the complainants contacted the Op in his office but the OP behaved rudely with them.  Thereafter, the complainants issued a written notice to the OP thereby demanding the advance amount but by sending a reply on 17/11/14, the OP denied to refund the money with some false and concocted grounds.  It is alleged that the OP did not render the service for which the money was advanced.  The complainants have been harassed by the OP seriously and due to such harassment, the complainants severed mental trauma.  For such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Op is liable to compensate the complainant for the same.  Hence, the complaint praying for refund of Rs.70,000/-, damages, interest and cost.

            The OP has contested this case filing a written objection.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the OP that the complaint is not maintainable in law in its present form and prayer,  that the complainants are not coming within the definition of consumers, that no cause of action has been disclosed, that the OP is a reputed travel agent dealing in package tours, Rail and Air ticket, Passport, Foreign Currency in different parts  the state including Medinipur Town, that the OP announced a package tour to Andaman & Nicobar which was scheduled to be held on and from 22/5/13 to 28/5/13 and getting such information, one Partha Pal of  Khairulla Chak contracted with the OP on behalf of the complainants and he was disclosed about the terms and conditions of the package and the OP also gave him the same in writing including the terms and conditions for cancelation charges and refund rules.  After few days, said Partha Pal on behalf of the complainants informed the OP about their willingness to participate in the said tour programme and they also made payment of Rs.70,000/- part by part as advance booking and receipts acknowledging such payment was also given to said Partha Pal.  The OP thereafter booked flight- tickets as well as hotel accommodation, car rentals, entry fees etc. and also made payment to the local tour operator as per was agreed terms and conditions.  But suddenly on 19/5/13 i.e. about three days prior to the commencement of the journey, said Partha Pal informed the OP that the complainants would be unable to participate in the said tour programme for some unavoidable circumstances.  Hearing that, the OP requested Partha Pal to communicate the complainants to try to replace their participation with another five persons and that the OP would also try to recover  the amount as received, if and only  airlines become ready to change the names with requisite charge fees.  But neither Partha Pal nor the complainants could provide the OP with any other passengers.  As such the total airfare was forfeited as per their group ticket condition including other tour cost given as advance during booking made to the broker who was handling

Contd…………….P/3

 

-(3)-

arrangement at Port-Blair sight seen.   OP has further stated that the tour cost for the package per

person was Rs.24,000/- which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- in total for the five passengers.  Admittedly, the complainants paid Rs.70,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- still remains due from the complainants to the Op though as per the payment policy, the complainants had to make  full payment 36 days prior to the date of  journey.  Though the complainants did not participate in the tour, neither the airlines nor the tour operator refunded any money to the OP due to such non participation.  It is alleged that knowing fully about the terms and conditions of the package, cancellation and refund policy, the complainants have filed this case falsely against the OP with some oblique motive and mala fide intention.  OP, therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint case with heavy cost.

                                                Points for decision:-

 

1) Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?

2) Have the complainants any cause of action to file the present case?

3) Are the complainants entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

                                                Decision with reasons

 

             For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

            At the outset, it is to be mentioned here that neither the complainants nor the OP adduced any oral or documentary evidence in this case.  They have only filed few documents regarding such package tour, air tickets, policy terms and conditions of such tour programme.  From the respective pleadings of the parties, it appears that admittedly the OP is a travel agent dealing in package tour and the OP announced a package tour programme to Andaman & Nicobar Island, scheduled to be held on and from 22/5/13 to 28/5/13.  It is also not denied and disputed that knowing about such tour package, one Partha Pal on behalf of the complainants, advanced Rs.70,000/- part by part for participation of the five complainants in such tour programme.  It is also not denied and disputed that only three days prior to the commencement  of the said journey, the OP was informed that due to severe cerebral attack of one of the complainants  they were cancelling their trip.  Accordingly to the complainants, after recovery of such illness of complainant NO.2, they demanded to the OP to refund  their advance money of such package tour but the op refused to refund the same on some false pretext.  It is alleged by the complainants that the OP harassed them and for such refusal to refund the advance money, the complainants have suffered mental agony and pain which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as well as deficiency in service.

Contd…………….P/4

 

-(4)-

From the documents filed by the OP as well as the complainants, we find that the OP booked air tickets for such group tour programme.  It also appears from the documents filed by the

OP that the OP advanced Rs.1,20,000/- to Green Park Tours & Travels towards package tour and hotel booking out of Rs.1,64,000/- for 20 adult persons.  From the terms and conditions of such package tour, we find that the cancellation policy was that 30% of the package cost will be charged if cancelled before 24 days and 45% of the package cost will be charged if cancelled before 14 days of the date of journey and no refund will be made if cancelled within 14 days of the scheduled programme.  Here in the present case, we find that admittedly only before three days of the scheduled programme, the OP was informed by the complainants regarding their non participation in the said package tour.  It is not the case of the complainant that they were not aware about such cancellation policy as stated above.  It is also not the case of the complainants that the OP did not make payment towards air tickets, hotel booking and payment towards package tour/vehicle to Green Park tours and Travels.  It is also not the case of the complainant that the OP got refund of such advance payment of air ticket, hotel booking etc. In our above facts and circumstances, we find that the OP had no fault at all regarding such cancellation of the tour programme by the complainants party and the conduct of the OP in the present case does not amounts to dealing in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 

            All the points are accordingly disposed of. 

            In the result, the complaints case is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence, it is,

                                      ORDERED

            that the complaint case is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances, without any cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

            

       President                               Member                                               President                                                

                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.