Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case:
This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that on the month of January, 2020 the complainant was looking for a safe and trusted travel agent for travelling to Gangtok with their family and after searching of internet found OP’s website and collected the phone number and contacted the O.P and after getting called from the complainant then and there O.P met with him and assured of safe travel and then the complainant decided to go Gangtok with O.P and paid Rs. 10,000/- as an advance for tour on 22.1.2020. Thereafter Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 25.1.2020 and Rs. 6000/- was paid on 18.2.2020 and O.P issued receipt respectively. The package including train ticket was in total Rs. 55,000/- and journey will start on 19.5.2020 and return on 25.5.2020. But after purchasing ticket, in the month of March, 2020 Central Govt. declared Lockdown for Covid 19 and then the complainant decided he has refrained from go to Gangtok so he requested the O.P for cancelling his tour and ask them to refund the advance money. After several requests the O.P contacted the complainant and handover his two cheques of Rs. 4763/- dt. 29.12.2020 and Rs. 5240/- dt. 22.1.2021 but both cheques have been dishonored. Then the complainant on 15.1.2021 sent legal notice to the O.P but there were no fruitful result.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to refund Rs. 26,000/- with interest and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for compensation and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for mental pain and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- for agony and sufferings and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for litigation cost.
Defense Case:-
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations leveled against him and prayed to dismiss the instant case with cost.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The O.P filed evidence on affidavit which reiterates the averments of the written version.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1: In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2: Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
Admittedly, the petitioner deposited Rs.26000/ for his journey to Gangtok commencing on 19/5/20 to 25/5/20. Another admitted fact is that purchase of train tickets through electronic reservation slips for to and fro journey amounts to Rs. 5238.34/ and Rs 4762.85/ I.e total Rs. 10,001.19/.
The written argument on behalf of the complainant admits in para 1 of the same ,” that after booked for Gangtok trip to the O.P, the O.P also purchased the train tickets of his family members for Gangtok tour.” It has also been admitted by the complainant ,” in the month of 2020 Central Govt. declared the lockdown for COVID 19 pandemic.”
In the facts and circumstances stated above the tour programme of the complainant in the month of May can be said to have a set back on the declaration of the central govt. and accordingly the money spent in connection with the purchase of train tickets can not be allowed to be returned in toto. May it be by deduction of 25% of the total amount for purchase of tickets that is Rs. 7500/- is required to be handed over to the complainant as there was no fault on both the sides to continue with the journey what was intended to take its start on 19/5/2020.
On the basis of the documents submitted by the O.P there appears no whisper about booking of hotel of Rs. 18000/ and advance booking of rental car of Rs. 12000/ for the family of the petitioner. The sole document of the office of the PIPON ,North Sikkim bearing reference number INT/D/248/2019-20 dated 12/3/20 wherein it appears that the hotel decided to stop the entry of tourists from the other states of the country to LACHEN with immediate effect but this sole document also does not in any way support the O.P that any penny has been given therefore. Accordingly the statements with regard to hotel booking and rental car are of no avail of O.P.
This commission has also taken into consideration of the two cheques of Rs 4763/ dated29/12/20 and also Rs. 5240/ dated 22/1/21 of ICICI Brabourne Road branch have been dishonoured and this fact also goes to show that undoubtedly a period of about 7 months have been lapsed for delivery o both these cheques. This behavior of the O.P gives this commission to find out that his intention was not to deliver any amount of money within the reasonable time even knowing the fact as submitted by the O.P in his written notes of argument,” the lockdown announced by the central govt. clubbed with the restrictions imposed by the state govt have stopped all activities’” during the world wide pandemic.
In the facts and circumstances stated herein above the O.P could have returned the money deposited by the complainant immediately after pandemic COVID 19, that is 19/3/20. Not only that, on the contrary the O.P kept the entire amount in deposit with him without making any whisper about the date of return of the same.
On consideration of the matters which this commission thinks fit that the petitioner is entitled to get reliefs as the same has caused deficiency of service and for litigation cost.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence
ordered
that the complaint case no. 83 of 2021 be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P.
The complainant do get return of Rs. 23,000/- along with Rs. 10,000 for deficiency of service and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost from the op within 45 days from date in default the complainant is at liberty to take recourse of law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
