Delhi

New Delhi

CC/166/2018

Dr. Ramakant Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, NTP Tours Affairs Limited - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

 `CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.166/2018                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

   Dr. Ramakant Gupta,

   4A/4, Raj Narayan Marg,

   Delhi-110019.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

           The Director,

           NTP Tours Affairs Ltd.,

           1015, Antriksh Bhawan,

          22,K.G. Marg, New Delhi.

 

                                                                                                                                                                               …......OPPOSITE PARTY

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant want to go to Kailash Mansarovar Yatra-2016 on 11.9.2016 with his wife, Dr. Manju Gupta,  and for this purpose, complainant booked a Pilgrimage Kailash Yatra by coach for himself and his wife  on 16.7.2016.  The total cost of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra  was Rs.1,14,950/-.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- each  to the OP vide receipt No.A/C-S.LNo.000427 and A/C-S.LNo.000427 dt. 16.7.2016.

2.     As per the communication received from Ms. Anjali of OP, in the first week of 2016, it was informed that that the proposed Yatra by their organization  was not possible by coach on 11^th September, 2016. As such, the complainant requested for refund of advance amounting to Rs.40,000/- paid to the OP on or about 8.8.2016, since no refund was received, complainant again made a request vide email dt. 23.8.2016, in response to which  a reply was received  from Ms. Anjali  via email dt. 24.8.2016 that matter was likely to be resolved within a week.  Thereafter, the complainant sent several e-mails to the OP but no reply was received, as such the legal notice was sent to the OP, OP neither replied to the notice nor had refunded the money, hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP. It denied any deficiency on its part.  It is submitted that the complainant has misled the Forum by putting the facts in the wrong manner.  It is further submitted that the present complaint filed with a sole motive to extort money from the OP. It is stated that  the complainant through one  Sh. Sandip Mohanty approached  the OP to organize a trip for six individuals including the complainant to Mt. Kailash and Mansarovar Yatra by coach scheduled for 11.9.2016.  It is stated that the officials of OP informed Sh. Sandip Mohanty about terms and conditions of the booking.  It is submitted that the total cost of the yatra was  Rs.1,14,950/- per individual, therefore, the total cost  of yatra for six individuals were Rs.6,89,700/-. It is further stated that for the aforesaid trip, all the six tourists made initial booking payment of Rs.20,000/-per individual in the favour of OP for confirming their itinerary plan as sent by the OP on 4.7.2016. After receiving the payment, OP raised advance booking receipt dt. 16.7.16 for each  in which OP clearly mentioned about the agreed terms and conditions. It is stated that as per clause 1 of aforesaid receipt an amount of Rs.20,000/-  was “Mandatory Kailash Non-Refundable Booking Amount”.   All the six tourists accepted the receipt and continued to plan their trip and neither Sh. Sandeep Mohanty nor the complainant made any objection in this regard.  In the meantime, a devastating Earthquake of magnitude over 7.8 M or 8.1 M having its epicentre near Chinese border occurred in the Kailash Mansarovar.  Thereafter, the OP also informed the complainant and its colleagues about an alternative route available via helicopter but due to financial constrains, Sh. Mohanty rejected  the aforesaid proposal and further declined to avail the services of OP.  Sh. Mohanty  approached the OP  for refund of booking amount  but the officials of OP clearly intimated to Sh. Mohanty that as per terms and conditions of OP’s policy booking amount was non-refundable.  It is stated the instant complaint is liable to be rejected on the sole ground of mis-joinder and  non-joinder of the necessary party, as  Sh. Sandip Mohanty was a facilitator in the booking with the OP.  After cancellation of above yatra, OP decided to offer another trip to Muktinath but Sh. Mohanty cancelled the Muktinath trip also for reasons unknown to the OP.   Further prayed for dismissal of complaint..

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

 

5.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

6.     Perusal of the file shows that the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.40,000/- with the OP for the proposed yatra.  The OP vide its email dt. 28.9.2016, assured the complainant the refund of the deposited amount. The contents of which are reproduced as under:

 

We are acknowledging in all fairness, you deserve refunds whatever deduced, we are pursuing to retrieve for our subscriber to setttlment of refund/adjustment in September/October months, please bear hope its end of ordeal, we are braving for our responsibility toward subscriber like you”.

 

Anjali very honestly pursuing your matter, please be assured October is deadline, we shall be closing all the docaits with enviable refunds and adjustment to the best satisfaction of our subscriber.

 

Kindly accord this assuring mail to oblige for co-operation.

 

7.     Perusal of the above email clearly shows that the OP itself admitted as well as assured the complainant to refund the advanced amount deposited till October 2016.   If there is any policy or terms of the OP of non-refund of the deposited amount as alleged by OP in its written statement, then OP ought to have mentioned the same in the email dt. 28.9.2016, this shows that the OP has taken the false and frivolous plea of non-refund of the advance amount in the case of cancellation in its written statement.   ON the one hand the OP vide its email admitted its liability to refund the money and also  assured the complainant that October, 2016 is the deadline and refund would be positively made to the subscriber and on the other hand, under the pretext of terms and conditions flatly refused to refund the deposited amount.  The act of OP amounts to unfair trade practice, we therefore hold OP guilty of unfair trade practice and direct it as under:

 

1. Pay to the complainant refund amount of Rs.40,000/-  alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e.  27.4.2018  till its realization.

 

2. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.

 

3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on  28/11/2019.

 

 

      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

  PRESIDENT

                                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                 (H.M. VYAS)

                                           MEMBER                                                                MEMBER