DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO- 409/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission:- Date of Disposal:
27.06.2016 07.07.2016 28.02.2019
Complainant :- 1. Amit Kumar Biswas,
S/o Rabindra Nath Biswas,
AC- 189, Sec- I,
P.O- CC Block,
P.S- Bidhannagar North,
Salt Lake City,
Kolkata- 700064.
2. Jeet Moulik,
S/o Dwiptendra Nath Moulik,
64/11H/1a, Suren Sarkar Road,
P.O+P.S- Beliaghata, Kolkata- 700010.
=Vs.=
OPs:- 1. The Manager of SOTC,
Travel Services Pvt. Limited,
(Formerly Kouni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd),
7th Floor, Urmi Estate,
95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel (West),
Mumbai- 400013.
2. The Brach Manager ,
M/s Kouni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. /SOTC,
DA 32, Ground Floor, Sec- I,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700064.
P R E S E N T :- Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder ……………………Member.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw ………..…………….Member.
Final Order
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not refund the amount as sought for by the Complainant till filing of this complaint.
The petition of complaint as well as the documents reveals that about 20 persons made contract with the OP-2 for a foreign tour in Greece & Turkey for the period from 19.10.2015 to 05.11.2015. It is for the first time during the course of argument the Ld. Counsel for the OPs has raised the plea that this complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum on two scores i.e. Firstly, out of 20 persons only two persons have approached before this Ld. forum by filing this complaint claiming the amount of other 18 persons, who are not at all in the picture.
Cont……………..2
:2:
C. C. NO- 409/2016
As per settled law on behalf of the said 18 persons complaint can be filed, but in that respect separate petition u/S 12 (1) (c) is required. But in the case in hand no such petition is filed and no liberty/permission was taken by the Complainant from this Ld. Forum. Secondly, this complaint is hopelessly barred by its pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. The Complainants who were present during argument have admitted the second plea of the Ld. Counsel for the OPs. The Complainants have submitted one document showing the amount which was paid to the OPs by said 20 persons for their tour. The Complainants have submitted that admittedly about Rs.50,00,000/- was paid to the OPs for their tour for 20 persons.
Therefore we are to adjudicate this complaint based on the said two aspects as raised by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs.
Firstly it is seen by us from the petition of complaint as well as the documents it is evident to us that admittedly 20 persons made a contract with the OPs for conducting their tour in Greece and Turkey. Twenty persons paid their respective amount to the OPs as per the contract. But out of 20 persons two persons/Complainants have approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint seeking refund of money for the said 20 persons. In this respect we are to say that the Complainants did not file any separate petition u/S12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986 wherein it is enumerated that ‘one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested…..’ But at the time of filing this complaint no separate application was filed under the abovementioned Section of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is necessary to filed for seeking permission from this Ld. Forum.
Secondly, as the cost of the service for the 20 persons have crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, this complaint cannot be maintainable as we have no authority to adjudicate any complaint where the total value of the complaint has exceeded Rs.20,00,000/-. The Complainants have admitted that the 20 persons paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the OPs for their tour programme . Hence we are of the view that this complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum.
Hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no-409/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.
Cont……………..3
:3:
C. C. NO- 409/2016
But the Complainants are at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum/Court/Commission, if not barred otherwise, in view of the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428).
Be it mentioned that the Complainants are entitled to get return the petition of complaint, evidence and other related papers and documents upon prior application before the office of this Ld. Forum. The Office is directed to take appropriate step in this context in accordance with law so that the Complainants can get return of the same without any delay and hazards.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
