Judgment : Dt.5.4.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Sec.12 of C. P. Act, 1986, by Dr. Niranjan Sahoo and Ms Lina Paul against The Group Chief Executive of (Mr. Basharul Munna) M/S BIM Holidays Travel Agency.
The fact, as stated in the petition of complaint that the Complainants, being invited to present their research papers on the topic ‘A study on Cyclone Persuaded Human Behaviours and Responses: With special reference to Orissa
Super Cyclone 1999 and Phailin 2013’ by International Economics Development Research Centre at their 3rd International Conference which was going to be held at Bangkok Thailand on and from October 9 to 11, 2016, they made contact to the OP, for booking tickets for onward travel on 8.10.2016 and return on 13.10.2016, hotel accommodation and arrangement of VISA to attend the said Conference. Entire consideration amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid to the OP by a cheque having No.184707 dt.19.09.2016, drawn on Bank of India, Ranchi branch. The Complainants specifically stated that in spite of making full payment and observing all formalities, the OP did not arrange tickets as per their instruction i.e. to Bangkok on 8.10.2016 and return there from on 13.10.2016, rather arranged tickets for onward travel on 5.10.2016. The Complainants have given a detailed description of date-wise activities by the OP personnel who gave the Complainants false assurance of delivery of tickets and VISAs so that they might be able to avail the flight to Bangkok on 8.10.2016. Ultimately, the OP did not arrange for Air Tickets and VISAs for the Complainants which resulted in missing the opportunity to attend the said international conference by the Complainants and thus suffering of loss of progress in their respective career.
Accordingly, the Complainants have prayed for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.10,62,000/- to the Complainants to compensate the damages and loss caused due to unprofessional and fraudulent business of BIM Holidays.
Notices were duly served upon the OP but the OP did not turn up. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP vide Order No.7 dt.13.1.2017.
In course of hearing the Complainants in person have submitted that they have stated everything in their petition of complaint and, therefore, they are not ready to submit anything else.
The Complainants have adopted the petition of complaint as evidence on affidavit. The Complainants have annexed Photostat copies of documents such as booking voucher, itinerary sent by the OPs, money receipt voucher, international conference invitation letter, print of all e-mail communications, etc.
Points for determination (1) whether the Complainants are consumer under the OP, (2) whether the instant case is maintainable before this Forum, (3) is there any deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP and (4) whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief as claimed.
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. (1) & (2) : Both points are taken up together for brevity of decision.
The Complainants paid consideration for availing service to be provided by the OP and thus have become consumer as per Sec.2(1)(d) of C.P.Act.
The address of the OP is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as per provision Sec.11(2) and the value of the service plus the amount claimed for the compensation is below Rs.20,00,000/- which means it’s well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as per Sec.11(1) of the C.P.Act. Cause of action took place within the prescribed time limit under Sec.24A of C.P.Act. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
Point nos. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.
Point No.3 – It appears from the uncontroverted evidence of the complainants that the Complainants paid the entire amount of consideration of Rs.32,500 X 2 =Rs.65,000/- to the OP for four nights five days plus Visa fees for the travel dates on and from 8.10 – 13.10. It appears from the notification issued by IEDRC (which stands for International Economics Development Research Centre) that the said Conference was going to be held on and from October, 9 to 11, 2016 at Bangkok, Thailand. It appears from the copies of e-mail that several correspondences were made from the ends of both Complainants to the OP requesting for arrangement of air ticket on 8.10.2016 as well as for arrangement of Visa. It also appears from the evidence that the Complainant No.1 also approached to the Assistant Director, CA & FBD, Salt Lake, regional officer for amicable settlement of the dispute cropped up between the parties praying for refund of consideration amount for ticket and Visa along with payment of compensation.
All the above mentioned documents show that the Complainants paid entire consideration amount for availing service to be provided by the OP on agreed points of time, but, fact remains that the OP failed to provide the agreed service. This deviation is obviously an example of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
Point No.4 – Under prayer No.1, 2 & 4 the Complainants have prayed for travel expenses and lodging charges of the Complainant No.2 to be paid by the OP but no document has been filed in support of the claimed expenses. Thus, the same are not allowed. Under prayer No.3 the Complainants pray for refund of the paid amount of Rs.65,000/- for ticket, Visa, etc. and photocopy of the receipt is annexed to the evidence on affidavit which shows the OP received the said amount from the Complainants since the OP failed to provide the service as per agreed terms for which the Complainants could not avail the journey. The OP should refund the amount to the Complainants.
Under prayer No.5, the Complainants have prayed for Rs.3,60,000/- on the ground that promotion of Complainant No.1 got stuck for 12 months due to non-publication/ non-presentation of his research paper in international conference, but, no authentic document regarding the promotion scheme is brought forward before us. Thus, this prayer is not allowed.
Under prayer No.6 the Complainants have prayed Rs.5,00,000/- as to a lump-sum amount of compensation. According to our assessment Rs.1,00,000/- will be the proper amount for compensation to the Complainant No.1.
Further, under this prayer the Complainant mentioned that the proposed research paper on disaster management would have brought large benefit to the whole nation and therefore the OP caused a great loss to the society as a whole. In respect of this loss we are of opinion that the OP is liable to deposit another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the SCWF.
Under prayer No.7, the Complainants have prayed for compensation for suffering from loss by the Complainant No.2 of getting a better placement due no non-participation and presentation in the international platform. As per our assessment, Complainant Nio.2 will be compensated if the OP pays Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant No.2 towards compensation.
Under prayer No.8, the Complainants have prayed for litigation cost. Since the OP compelled the Complainants to file the instant complaint by not providing the agreed service they are liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Point No.4 is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence,
ordered
That the CC/473/2016 is allowed in part ex-parte with costs.
The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.65,000/- to the Complainants within 1 month from the date of communication of this order to them.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant No.1 another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant No.2 towards compensation and to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the SCWF, WB, and to pay to the Complainants Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation within the aforesaid period.
In the event of non-compliance, the unpaid amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till realization thereof in full.
