IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /76/2015.
Date of Filing: 16.06.2015. Date of Final Order: 29.11.2016.
Complainant: Sri Kamalendu Kundu, S/O Late Brojolal Kundu, Vill.& P.O. Goaljan,
P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742188.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Chairman, Dishari Holidays Limited, 33A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Chatterjee International Center(C.I..C), 14th Floor, Flat No. 07, Kol-71.
2. Sri Prakash Chandra Mondal, C/O Gopal Chandra Mondal,
Vill. Bhakuri, P.O. Chaltia, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742165.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.
Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for refund of Rs.40,000/- , which was deposited as advance payment for a package tour of Kashmir to the OP, along with interest @10% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant met Sri Prakash Chandra Mondal/Op No.2 an authorized person of the Op No.1/Dishari Holidays Limited and made a tour programme for Kashmir, with his relatives. Thereafter, for that tour the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- by cheque bearing No.000244121 in the name of Prakash Chandra Mondal and Rs.10,000/- by Cheque No. 000244122 in the name of Dishari Holidays Limited in total Rs.40,000/- through his S.B. account NO. 30800608685 at S.B.I. Berhampore to Sri Prakash Mondal /OP no.2. The complainant requested over phone to the OP No.2 to handover the ticket, which is necessary to get his L.T.C from his office. The OP No.2 told the complainant that the OP No.1 cancelled the Tour Programme and advance money to be refunded in due time. The complainant waited for a considerable time and then several times he requested to the OP to refund the deposited money. But the OPs did not pay any heed to the matter. According to this complainant, the OPs did not informed him that the programme was cancelled , which is an example of gross negligence /deficiency in service on the part of the OP as well as till today did not whisper of returning the paid amount. So, the complainant made complaint to the Consumer Affairs &Fair Business Practice, Murshidabad Regional Office at Berhampore, where the Ld. Assistant Director also failed to solve the dispute through medication and dropped the case. Then the complainant came to this Forum for proper redress.
On the other hand the OP No.1/The Chairman, Dishari Holidays Limited, inspite of receiving notice did notturn up. So, the case proceeds ex parte against OP No.1.
OP no.2 /Sri Prakash Chandra Mondal appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied all the material facts, but admitted that the complainant made advance for the Tour and he collected the amount with issuing the proper receipt. He also stated that he is an employee of the OP No.1 and follow the instruction of the OP No1 for that he only collect the booking advance and deposited the same to the OP No.1 which is the only liability of the Op No.2 in the capacity of his terms of employment. He also added that due to natural calamity the said tour was cancelled by the OPNo.1 and the information was given to the complainant. He is not responsible for that and so the case is not maintainable against him and prayed for dismissal of the case with a litigation cost for harassment of him.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as he prayed for or not.
Decision with Reasons.
The complainant submitted some documents like Xerox copy of Bank Passbook, money receipts of the OPs, Letter, A/D cards etc in support of his case.
Admitted position of this case is that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.40,000/- as advance booking for Kashmir Tour to the OPs through separate two cheques which was evident from the copy of Bank Account Statement of the complainant as well as those money receipts issued by the OP No.2 Dispute starts when the complainant asked for Tickets to the OPs due to his official need, the OP No.2 told that the tour programme has been cancelled by the OP no.1. The complainant became astonished that how the OPs cancelled the tour without any intimation to him. At least after cancellation the OPs should intimate him. Though the OP No.2 demanded that the Tour was cancelled due to natural calamity and informed the complainant regarding cancellation of tour but there was neither evidence, nor a single document regarding natural calamity and information and the record submitted by any of the parties. The act of OPs is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Perused the documents on record, it is found that the OP no.2 stated in the written version that he is a mere employee of the Op No.1. So, he has no involvement in any transactions of the tour programme. So, the particular suit is not maintainable against him, it is only between the complaint and the OP No.1. In this regards, our clear observation is that the OP No.2 made contradictory statement in his written version as because in another para in his written version he stated that he collected cheques and issued receipts. In addition the record shows that the cheque with the amount of Rs.30, 000/- was in the name of OP No.2 and both the receipts were signed by the OP No.2 which is evident that the OP No.2 is involved as responsible person not a mere employee of the Institution, for that the OP No.2 cannot avoid the responsibility of the matter.
Besides this, we observed that though the OP No.2 fully involved in this matter, yet he wrote in the written version that he is not involved and only the Op No.1 is involved and so, the said case be proceeded in Kolkata Jurisdiction. It is an attempt to misguide the Forum, which proved lack of transparency as well as breach of contract on the part of the OPs.
As a main service provider, the OP No.1 had a key role in this case but he did not appear in this case. So, we had no scope to know the view of the OP No.1.
On the basis of above discussions and considering documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that the OPs are practicing unfair trade practice in the society for which they have to pay Rs.10, 000/- as cost to the Government as punishment and the complainant is entitled to get back his deposited amount of Rs.40, 000/- along with Rs.10, 000/- as compensation from the OPs.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 76/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.2 and ex parte against the OP No.1 with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OPs are jointly and/or severally directed to pay/refund the deposited money of Rs.40, 000- along with Rs.10, 000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5, 000/- as litigation cost to the complainant withinin 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account for unfair trade practice within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure of the above order by the OPs within the stipulated period, the OPs have to pay fine @ Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
