Judgment : Dt.5.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Joydeb Ghatak, P 40/3, Dr. A. K. Pal Road extn. Kolkata-700 034 against Suvankar Das, 75, Diamond Harbor Road, Stall No.75, Behala new Market (14) No. Kolkata-700 034, P.S.-Bahala,OP praying for refund of the booking money Rs.3,000/- of the tour with interest @ 10% till disposal of the matter and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant Joydeb Ghatak a senior citizen retired as Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF of P40/3, Dr. A. K. Pal Road extn. Kolkata-700 034 is the Complainant and one Suvankar Das is OP. Complainant booked the tour of Kashmir with his Company, Piyashi Bhaman for 12 days start on 1.10.2016 to 11.10.2016 for Rs.12,000/- and Complainant paid Rs.3,000/- as advance with condition to adjust the railway ticket fare as Complainant booked the ticket fare with others on his own. OP issued a receipt slip No.221 in support of tour details and receipt of Rs.3,000/-. Complainant postponed the tour himself and asked to refund the booking money.

            Further, Complainant has stated that he sent several messages through his mobile on 9.1.2017, 17.1.2017, 11.01.2017 and requested to refund the booking money paid by him. OP refused to refund the booking money. Thereafter, Complainant asked OP to show the documents on the strength of which he is running the tour business. Complainant also sent e-mail. But, OP did not refund the money. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP did not contest the case after receiving notice and so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

        Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.3,000/- out of Rs.12,000/- for a tour starting from 1.10.2016 and  terminating on 12.10.2016. Xerox copy of  cancelled ticket has also been filed. But original has not been filed. Had the original been filed it would have made clear as to who has purchased the ticket and the date when it was cancelled.

         Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant has failed to prove the allegation which he brought, despite the fact the allegation remained unrebutted and  unchallenged.

          So, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to  any relief as prayed for.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/473/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.