DOF.25.5.2010 DOO.14.9.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 14th day of September 2010 C.C.No.144/2010 P.P.Kumaran, Rema Niv as, Thilannur, P.O.Thazhe Chovva, Kannur 18. Complainant 1.Branch Manger, Vivekananda Travels, KVR Tower, South Bazar, Kannur 2. 2.General Manger, Vivekananda Travels, Sreekandeswara Complex, Kozhikode 4. Opposite parties O R D E R Sm.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 15 000/- as compensation with 18% interest.. The case of the complainant is that he had joined with the Vivekananda Travels for a tour package to Nepal. Under a special scheme” Golden Card”. The charge of the tour package is Rs.15, 500/- per head. But as per the above said Golden Card special scheme, the person who is depositing Rs.33,333/- for one year as fixed deposit is entitled to join the tour package without giving the above stated charge of Rs.15,5000/-. Accordingly the complainant had deposited Rs.33333/- with the 1st opposite party on 2.4.09 and hence he is entitled to participate the tour programme and he has no right to the interest for the above said amount for the period of deposit. The opposite parties had conducted a tour as promised on 25.9.09 and the complainant also joined along with other 42 persons from all over Kerala. During their journey when they reached near the border of India-Nepal, the guide had collected Rs.300/- from them by saying that it is for paying to the check post. As per the agreement, on the 6th day of journey the opposite party has to provide journey by plane from Pokara to Katmandu. This arrangement is for seeing the Everest. But instead of this the opposite party had taken them by bus to Katmandu. So they have missed the beautiful sight of Everest. Moreover, the bus stopped the journey in the mid-way and the bus operators informed them that the opposite party has to pay them when they enquired about the reason. Later on after one hour the bus resumed the journey and at about 10 p.m during night they reached at Katmandu. But at Katmandu the opposite parties have arranged a partly completed lodge and has not provided enough food from there. As per the agreement of the tour package on the next day morning the opposite parties have to take them for seeing sunrise at Nagarkot. But the opposite parties have deviated from the promise. In the morning also they had provided only some loafs of bread and coffee instead of sufficient food. Because of these unwarranted incidents all the passengers become so tired and hence they complained to the Manger and General Manger through telephone from Katmandu. The return journey was in the plane. But due to the change of the journey by bus instead of plane the passengers including the complainant had missed the beautiful sight of Everest. On the next day the bus had started the journey only after two hours. Even though all of the passengers were ready for journey. The reason stated by the bus operators was that the opposite parties have to give money to them and only after receiving the amount, they will start the journey. The complainant had returned after the journey on 8th October 2009 and had issued complaints to the opposite parties. But no action was taken by them. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the forum opposite parties appeared but there after they remain absent and hence they were called absent and set exparte. The main point to be decided in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A8. The complainant’s case is that he had entered into an agreement with the 1st opposite party for a tour package to Nepal under a “Special Scheme Golden Card and he had deposited Rs.33333/- with the opposite party for one year with a stipulation to return the amount back on 1.4.10 and the complainant can participate in the above said tour package. According to the complainant, he had suffered lot of hardship due to the deficient service of opposite party during tour and the opposite party is liable for all the sufferings since it was caused due to the deficient service of opposite party. More over the opposite party had returned the above said deposited amount only on 10.5.10 instead of 1.4.10. In order to prove his case he had produced Exts.A1 to A8 such as receipts, details regarding tour package, copy of agreement, copy of letter issued by the complainant to opposite party, postal receipts and copy of complaints filed before opposite parties. The Ext.A1 and A2 and A4 Agreement along with the pleadings proves that the complainant had deposited Rs.33333/- with the opposite party with a stipulation to return back the deposited amount after one year i.e. on 1.4.10 and the complainant can participate in the tour package also. The complainant had produced Exts.A3 i.e. the details regarding the tour programme. But he pleaded that the complainant along with other 42 persons were suffered so much of mental as well as physical pain due to deficient service of opposite parties during the tour programme. He contended that the tour programme was conducted not as per the chartered programme. But no evidence is before \us to prove this contention of the complainant. The complainant pleaded that there were 42 persons in the packaged tour programme who were belonging to all over Kerala. But the complainant has not produced or examined any of such persons to prove his pleadings. We all know that since it is a long trip having number of persons at least some person will suffer some inconvenience. So we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service upon the opposite parties in the absence of convincing evidence. But the documents show that the complaint had deposited Rs.33333/- with the opposite party and the complainant contended that the above amount was return back only on 10.5.10 instead of 1.4.10. There is no evidence before us to show that the said amount was returned within time. So we are of opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for refund the deposited amount. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that granting an amount of Rs.1000/- will meet the ends of justice. So the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation, cost and interest and the complainant is entitled to receive the same. In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) as cost, compensation and interest to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant: A1& A2.Receipt voucher and receipt issued by OP A3.Copy of he details regarding the tour programme A4.Copy of the agreement A5.Postal receipt A6. & 7.Copy of the letter sent to OPs A8.certificte of posting receipt Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
