West Bengal

Jalpaiguri

CC 33/2013

Sri.Sanjoy Bhowmik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Aloke Chakraborty Authorised Agent of Kalyani Tour & Travels SANJOG Pandapara Road - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2014

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
JALPAIGURI
 
Complaint Case No. CC 33/2013
 
1. Sri.Sanjoy Bhowmik
S/o Late Paresh Chandra Bhowmik SJDA Composite Complex Plot No.:-HIG75, Post:- Denguajhar P.S:- Kotwali, Dist:- Jalpaiguri
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sri. Aloke Chakraborty Authorised Agent of Kalyani Tour & Travels SANJOG Pandapara Road
Shree Dayal Complex, P.S.- Kotwali Post and Dist- Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 03 Jan 2014
Final Order / Judgement

This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sri. Sanjoy Bhowmik where in it is contended inter alia to the effect that on 27/10/2012 the complainant and his other four family members joined the tour programme with the tour operator of Kalyani Tour & Travells for the period of 27/10/2012 to 28/11/2012 and he paid the full amount of Rs.66,550/-(after deduction of Rs.3,000/- for fooding charge in train). O.P. No.1 Aloke Chakraborty is the authorized agent of said Kalyani Tour & Travells and Samar Ghosh is the proprietor of said Kalyani Tour & Travells. In the middle of the said tour,under the impression of O.Ps.the complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the O.P. No.2. The said payment of Rs.4,000/- has been shown in breakup in the complaint. It is further case of the complainant that one Debasish Ghosh dealing with as Tour Operator behaved badly. For having relief the complainant lodged a complaint to the Asstt. Director, C.A.&F.B.P.- Jalpaiguri Regional Office where in a redressal was made in connection with Case No.435/57/GS//12-13 and in the said Redressal the O.P. No.1 Aloke Chakraborty agreed to return back a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant within 22/03/2013 but in vain. Hence, this case.      

 

The O.Ps. have contested this case by filing Written Objection/Written Version and denied all material allegations as alleged by the complainant against them. It is also contended that in the said W/V it is stated that out of said tourist members three adult members and one child would be accommodated in one double bed room @Rs.13,750/- for each adult member and @Rs. 12,950/- for one child plus Service Tax. Subsequently the charges of each adult member has been increased from Rs.13,750/- to Rs.14,550/- which was accepted by the complainant. The O.Ps. supplied all railway tickets to the complainant who agreed that the O.Ps. would not bear food charges for to and for railway journey which is also mentioned in the written Terms & Conditions of the agreement signed by the complainant. Out of total charges of Rs.74,001/- as the complainant paid only Rs.66,550/-, the complainant is/was liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,451/- in favour of the O.Ps and subsequently, the O.Ps deducted a sum of Rs.3,450/- out of said total recoverable sum of Rs.7,451/-. But the complainant by making false statement has shown wrong amount of charges etc in the complaint. In this circumstances, the O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

 

Under the above averments both parties want on having with the following points:-

Points to be decided

1)      Is the complainant entitled to get reliefs as sought for?

2)      To what other relief/reliefs is the complainant entitled?

 

Decision with reasons

 

Point Nos. 1 & 2:-

            Both these points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience as they are interlinked and interrelated.

 

            Admittedly the complainant availed the tour in question with the assistance of the OPs. It reveals in record that disputes between the parties was arisen in relation to payment of excess charges made by complainant in favour of the O.Ps. After scanning the entire record with meticulous care we got materials that on the basis of redressal as made before Assistant Director, C.A.& F.B.P. Jalpaiguri Regional Office in connection with Case No. 435/57/GS/12-13 this O.P.No.1 confessed and agreed to return back a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the complainant within 22.03.2013 to settle their disputes in question and in no way the O.Ps. are to escape themselves from paying off the same. That apart after having considered the arguments advanced by both parties we are of the opinion that it is to be fit and proper to direct these O.Ps. to pay another sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation for the ends of justice.

       Thus the case succeeds.

    Hence it is

O R D E R E D

            That the CC No. 33/13 filed by the complainant Sanjoy Bhowmik u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.with cost of        Rs. 1000/-to be paid by the O.Ps. in favour of the complainant.

 

            The O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs 2,500/- in favour of the complainant as agreed amount by O.P.No.1 before the Assistant Director C.A. & F.B.P. Jalpaiguri regional office in favour of the complainant.

 

            The O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation in favour of the complainant.

 

The O.Ps. are directed to pay off the said decretal amount within one month from this date, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to recover the said amount alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. on the decretal amount to be calculated on and from the date of filing of this case till the date of recovery of the entire decretal amount by filing a separate proceeding against the O.Ps. as per provision of law.

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.