BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 30^th May 2014         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

Complaint No.: 22/2014 

Complainant/s:

Ramachandra s/o.Dattatraya Kulkarni, Age: 64 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o.Priyadarshini Colony, Gokul Road, Hubli.

                                (By Sri.G.N.Joshi, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. Sunil Tours and Travels, By its Proprietor, Sri.Sunil Pasare “Tirth Enclave Apartment”, Rajarampuri, 11^th Lane, Kohapur, Maharashtra.

(Exparte)

2. Sunil Togari, Branch Manager, Sunil Tours & Travels, Akshay Park, Block No.F.13, Gokul Road, Hubli 580030.

(By Sri.S.B.Katagi, Adv.)

3. Tulash Tours & Travels, By its Branch Manager, Sunil Togari, No.F.13, Akshay Park Gokul Road, Akshay Hotel, Hubli 580030

(By Sri.V.G.Bullannavar, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.44000/- with interest @22% & to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony, cost of the proceedings and to grant other reliefs. 

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant intend to visit some place and pilgrimage. So on the advertisement of R1 the complainant approached the office of R1 at R2 and booked the tour program by paying the advance amount of Rs.10000/- on 17.06.2013. The package tour were to commence from 28.11.2013 & to be end on 09.12.2013 & total expense as per their advertisement was Rs.45000/-. On the advise of R2 the complainant further paid Rs.34000/- towards the balance amount on 15.11.2013 by retaining Rs.1000/- as per the advise towards the expenses from journey Hubli to Karwar. Hence, the complainant was eager to board the train scheduled. During that time at the fag end, the complainant received message through telephone from R1 and R2 informing change in the program and subsequent change will be informed as early. So the complainant waited but not received any intimation from respondents. Thereafter the complainant repeatedly visited R2 and insist for refund of same. The R2 went on postponing the same and also the R2 assured that the same will be refunded as they could not able to conduct the tour as scheduled due to inadequate and insufficiency of passengers. The complainant being a retired and aged persons at the hands of respondents subjected to harassment. Sudden cancellation of the tour and non refund of the amount    amounts to a deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In pursuance to the notice issued by this forum R2 and R3 appeared. While R1 despite service of notice remained absent. Hence proceedings is initiated in the absence of R1.

4.     The R2 admits written version stating that, the complaint is false, frivolous, misconstrued and not maintainable either in law or on facts and pray for dismissal of the complaint. Further, R2 also taken contention that, he is only an employee working as Manager under respondent.1. While the respondent also admits the payment made by the complainant and took contention that the answering respondent being an employee as per the direction of R1 received the amount and remitted to R1 and hence the answering respondent is not liable for refund of the same. Further the respondent denied all the other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint paras. Further the respondent took contention that the amount received from the complainant as per the direction of R1 the said amount has been transferred to the account of one Mr.Abhijit Khanderao and alleged that he is not liable and he h as not committed any deficiency in service, there is no cause of action for the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     The R3 also admits written version in the same line arraigned by the R2. Further contention of R3 is that the R3 is none other than R2, since the R1 closed the office at Hubli, he joined and working under R3 as an employee and R3 is an unnecessary part and there is no cause of action and prays for dismissal of the complaint against R3 and pray for dismissal of the complaint. 

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both parties filed sworn to evidence affidavit and relied on documents. Apart from argument both the parties have filed notes of argument. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.   Affirmatively
2.   Accordingly
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

7.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the complainant had paid in total Rs.44000/- to the R1 through R2 towards the fare of the tour program. This is evident by document C.4. By the pleadings and evidence of both the parties there is no much dispute with regard to the fact that R1 did not conduct the package tour as undertaken as per C.4 document. By looking into the  pleadings and also evidence it is evident that R2 is only an employee working under R1 and acted according to the direction of R1.

8.     Further looking into the pleadings and as contended by R3, R3 is unnecessary party, because R3 has no any involvement in the transaction between complainant and R1 and R2. The branch manager Sunil Tagori of R3 is none other than the manager who was working as R2 under R1. Hence, R3 is unnecessary party and R3 has been wrongly coined to the instant complaint.

9.     As discussed above for the reason as R1 has not conducted tour, certainly R1 ought to have return the amount. Accordingly the complainant is entitled for the said amount.

10.   As contended by R2 and as it is evident by looking into the  case on hand the R2 is only an employee working for R1. So, R2 is not liable to pay the amount reported by R1. R1 is only bound to refund. Hence, the complainant established his case against the R1. Accordingly complainant is entitled for both refund as well as for compensation and cost.

11.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 in affirmative and 2 accordingly .

12.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

The complaint is partly allowed. The respondent.1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.44000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of complaint till realization along with Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. The respondent.1 shall pay the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Claim against R2 and R3 dismissed.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 30^th day of May 2014)

 (Smt.Vijayalaxmi.M.)                       (Shri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

 Member,                                         President,

 Dist. Consumer Forum,                  Dist. Consumer Forum,

M.S.R.