SRI. SAJEESH.K.P     : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the OPs to refund  Rs.30,500/- as sustained financial loss and Rs.10,000/- as cost  and  compensation for mental agony towards deficiency in service from the part of OPs.

Complaint in brief :-

   The complainant booked a tour package  in the year 2020 for an estimated cost of Rs.35,000/-, flight ticket was booked by OPs and the date of journey fixed  on 26/2/2020. In amount of  Rs.20,000/- was collected  from complainant  as advance and it paid  to the bank account of  1^st OP.  But unfortunately OPs intimated  the complainant that the journey was postponed due to   pandemic and complainant requested for refund which was not  refunded  by OPs.  The OPs again collected Rs.6600/- from  complainant by assuring that journey postponed to another date.  The new date of journey was fixed after 2 years  ie, on 25/5/2022 and they further collected Rs.3450/- which was paid to  bank account of 2^nd OP.  Unfortunately, on 19/5/2022 complainant had been  hospitalized due to cardiac arrest and underwent Angioplasty operation.  On 20/5/2022, complainant  intimated his inconvenience  to join the journey and requested for  refund of ticket. The Ops  have  not considered by  request and hence this complaint.

         After filing the complaint, commission has  issued notice to  Ops and the notice was returned as  endorsement “Not known” and hence deemed to be served. The OPs  have not  appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  Ultimately the commission  had to held that  the OPs have no version and the case proceed against the OPs as set exparte.

         Even though, the opposite parties have  remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OPs.  Hence the  complainant was  adduced evidence in the form of proof  affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the  complainant  has chosen to produce his affidavit along with  documents  marking as Exts.A1 to A6. So the OPs remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

   Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1  . On the perusal of  documents and evidence adduced by complainant. Ext.A1, the receipt of Rs.20,000/- to OPs seems to be true  since complainant made an averment in complaint that Rs.20,000/- collected  by OPs prior to the journey.  Ext.A2, round trip itinerary shows that trip to Bangkok was scheduled as stated in the complaint.  Even though , there is no evidence produced to show the cancellation or refund of the amount collected by OPs for the  tour, it is seen from Ext.A3, another trip to Bangkok was booked in the year 2022 April ie, after 2 years of prior  booking.  As per Ext.A3, the trip was scheduled on 26^th May 2022, but on the perusal of ExtA4, it is seen that complainant is  admitted in the hospital on 19/5/2022 due to chest pain and remained there at 24/5/2022 ie, complainant  get discharged  2 days prior to the scheduled journey.  According to complainant  a person who underwent angioplasty will not be able to travel in couple of days after the discharge .  According to Ext.A5(series) it is seen that an amount of Rs.20,000/- transferred to OPs account on 17/1/2020, Rs.5600/- to OPs on 24/2/2020 another transaction of Rs.3450/- seen to  be transferred  to SMFT Thailand, but there is no  clear evidence that it is transferred to  the account of OPs.  Ext.A6 series is the whatsapp conversation made between complainant and OPs about the trip.  To conclude , from Ext.A4, it is evident that complainant was not in a position to travel a long journey.  From Exts.A5 series, it is seen that  Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5600/- was transferred to  the account of  OPs.  The transaction of Rs.3450/- is not clearly proved.  Moreover there is no evidence before the commission that complainant  get the amount refunded and  OPs remained exparte and not contended the averments of complainant even after the  commission had given fair chance  to OPs.  Hence the commission came into a conclusion that the OPs are liable to  deficiency in service with regard to the non remittance of Rs.25,600/- collected by OPs from complainant.  It will meet the ends of justice.  Hence the complaint is  allowed in part.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following.

     In the result complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties  are jointly and severally directed to refund  the amount of Rs.25,600/-, which was collected by OPs from complainant  and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost  of litigation to the complainant  within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.25,600/- carries  interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against  opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- copy of Receipt dtd17/1/2020

A2-Copy of flight ticket dtd.17/1/2020

A3-copy of flight ticket

A4- Copy of  Discharge summary

A5 series- copy of bank account

A6 series- copy  of whatsapp message

PW1-E.P.Bhaskaran- complainant

Sd/                                                                                 Sd/                                                                    Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR