Date of filing: 28/11/2018
Judgment date: 29/05/2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant Dr. Mita Bhadra under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) Supreme Tours & Travels and (2) Ms. Saheli De Sarkar, Manager of OP 1, alleging unfair trade practice.
Case of the complainant in short is that she booked one standard double large bed room in Sagar Pare, Marine Drive Road for a five days tour to Puri commencing from 20.10.2016 to 25.10.2016 for three persons. Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs. 5,582/- towards hotel charge to OP No. 2. But complainant fell ill and so requested the OPs to postpone the journey and to adjust the amount paid. OP 2 who is the manager of OP No. 1 initially assured verbally to adjust the amount by confirming the further date but subsequently they started playing hide & seek. So complainant changed her mind and requested for refund to booking amount of Rs. 5,582/- but since amount was not refunded, demand notice dated 04.04.2017 & 11.10.2018 was sent by the complainant to OPs through her Ld. Advocate but since OPs paid no heed, present complaint is filed by the complainant praying for directing the opposite parties, to refund the booking amount of Rs. 5,582/- along with interest to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
OPs have contested the case by filing written version denying allegation made by the complainant contending specifically that as per cancellation rules of the OP No. 1, complainant is not entitled to any refund. It is further contended that OP 2 had requested the complainant to confirm the further date of tour but complainant never turned up. So OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
During the course of evidence both parties have filed examinations in chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately arguments of both side has been heard.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Both the points being co-related are taken up together for discussion. At the very outset it may be pointed out that booking of five days tour to Puri from 20.10.2016 to 25.10.2016 and payment of booking amount of Rs. 5,582/- on 28.09.2016 has not been disputed and denied by the OPs in the written version. Only contention of OPs is that as per terms and conditions of cancellation, complainant is not entitled to refund.
According to the claim of the complainant, due to her illness, she had first requested for postponement of tour on some other dates and for which OP 2 had also assured of adjustment of amount but as behavior of OPs appeared to be reluctant, she cancelled the booking and asked for refund. But on the other hand, OPs specific contention is that complainant herself did not confirm further date of tour. Neither party has filed any document in this regard. Since it is settled Principles of Law that party seeking the relief has to establish his / her case, complainant has to substantiate by cogent document that she had asked to postpone the tour and to adjust the booking sum. But barring the voucher of payment of booking sum and two notices by Ld. Advocate, there is no document filed that complainant either by sending any text or letter to OPs had asked for postponement of tour and to adjust the booking amount paid by her.
The computer generated voucher issued by OPs has been filed by the complainant herself which contains specific terms and conditions in case of cancellation of tour. As per the terms and conditions on backside of the voucher, the percentage of amount to be deducted has been specifically stated in case of cancellation. So it can safely be presumed that complainant who appears to be a doctor, was aware about such terms and conditions but in spite of the same, no written communication was made requesting to postpone the schedule of tour and adjust the money paid. If that be so than as per specific terms that “no refund will be given, if request for cancellation is received in written less than 7 days before the date of arrival”, complainant is not entitled to any refund. Admittedly complainant had intimated to postpone the journey only on 19.10.2016 i.e. a day before the scheduled date of departure. She has not stated the specific date when she had asked for cancellation but the same has to be after the scheduled date of tour.
It is well settled law that neither the parties nor the court can go beyond the contract entered into between the parties where the terms and conditions are very clear and there is no ambiguity or vagueness. The argument on behalf of the complainant that the terms and conditions in the voucher does not bear the signature of the complainant is devoid of any merits as it is specifically mentioned that the same is a computer generated voucher and requires no signature and stamp. Moreover it is already highlighted above that the voucher is filed by the complainant herself and so she cannot deny the knowledge of the terms and conditions therein. In such a situation, in view of the discussions as highlighted above, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/646/2018 is dismissed on contest.
