O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainants against the Op in brief is, that they are the Dental Doctors engaged in their profession and that first complainant is also a Professor teaching in a college are busy in their scheduled works. That they in order to avail European Countries tour offered by the Op under the title “Thomas Cook Europe-2009’ through their agent one Mr. Amaranth who was a travel agent of Classic Tours and Travels. They agreed to the proposal of 16 nights/17 days programme commencing from 02/07/2009 as a departure day and they as advance, paid Rs.50,000/- to the Op. Op has also offered booklet offering several facilities and the Op also confirmed the tour programme on 29/04/2009. They collected all the necessary documents, income tax returns and made alternative arrangement to the teaching work and about their clinic but the Op suddenly two weeks prior to the departure canceling the tour returned Rs.39,466/- to their agent Amaranth by withholding Rs.11,534/- without assigning any reason. Despite issue of legal notice Op has not responded. Therefore, has prayed for a direction to Op to refund Rs.11,534/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and also to pay interest on the advance amount paid. <br /> <br /> Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable, that they are only arrange travels and operators and do not have any control of Airlines shipping company etc., but admitted to had received deposit of Rs.51,000/- from the complainants towards arranging Europe Tour. As stated by the complainant he had approached M/s. Bangalore Classic Tours and Travels for booking their tour which is a necessary party but the complainant has not made that agent as a party. It is further stated due to logistical complications tour was forced to be cancelled and as per the policy they have refunded Rs.39,466/- and stated that Rs.11,534/- is deducted as they have incurred cost in respect of the payment made to the consulate for applying Visa Exchange and Service etc., and stated that they have not caused any deficiency in their service, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant and Op have filed their affidavit evidence reasserting what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with the complaint has produced the booklet given by the Op, receipt for having paid the advance amount, copy of a letter issued towards confirmation of tour, copy of letter through which Op repaid part of the amount, with a copy of legal notice. Op has produced a copy of document containing the tourist places. Power of Attorney Holder of the complainants has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding Rs.11,534/-, out of the tour advance amount paid.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the Affirmative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: As it is explicit from the allegations of the complainants and the admission of Op there is no dispute that the Op had offered to extend tour of European Countries and had received an advance of Rs.50,000/-. Though Op in the version has contended that M/s. Bangalore Classic Tours and Travels are the necessary party who was approached for booking tour in their absence complaint is not maintainable. But the Op has not denied that he had proposed the Europe Tour, received advance money and confirmed the date of departure repaid part of advance and that Classic and Travels is a tour agent through whom traveling could have been taken up. Therefore, we find no merits in the contention of Op and Op is alone liable to account for the deficiency.<br /> <br /> Op has also admitted that because of logistical complications, the proposed tour was forced to be cancelled but what is that logistical complications came in his way in pursuing the tour is not made clear. Here we intend to say that the Op must have taken into consideration of all the hurdles that would come in his way in arranging the tour before accepting advance money. Once he accepts advance money and confirmed the date of departure, it is his responsibility to see the success of the tour and he cannot take shelter to get away from the responsibilities. Of course, despite all efforts of the Op if some hurdles had come in his way which is beyond his control and caused hurdles to the tour that could have been taken as excuse and exception. But we do not find any such reasons for stalling the tour by this Op. OP who has chosen to repay the money he should repay the entire money received and if he wants to deduct any portion he should substantiate and prove with the supporting evidence and documents if any part of the advance money was spent for the benefit of the complainants. But the Op has not placed any such materials before us. In the version and affidavit evidence they alleged to had incurred cost in respect of payment made to consulate for applying visa etc., but not placed a scrap of paper before us in having had applied for Visas for these complainants and having had paid any fee to the consulate officer. He has also not given any specific detail for which he has paid any money and how much he has paid. In the absence of such proof, the Op in our view has no right to retain even a rupee.<br /> <br /> The Op it is evident from the materials placed by the complainants not only he had promised to arrange tour but also through his letter confirmed it. The complainants since were assured tour programme had to make certain arrangements and accordingly they did make certain arrangements to start. When the complainants came to know the cancellation of the tour programme naturally they were disappointed and were put to embarrassment and mental disturbance as stated by us above. Parties like Op can not take the innocent people to their convenience and at last raise up their hands by telling that they can not do the needed because of some reasons and get away from the legal obligations. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that Op is not only required to pay the balance advance amount but also required to pay certain damages for the inconvenience and embarrassment the complainant faced. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> Op is directed to repay Rs.11,534/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a from the date of legal notice dated 09/12/2009 till it is repaid. <br /> <br /> Op shall also pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, he shall pay interest @ 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Op shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 22nd July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />