For the Complainant                     -  Mrs. Keka Chakraborty, Advocate

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the complainant had booked 05 tickets through travel agent Santosh Kumar Singh (herein after OP-2) for their journey from Siliguri to Kolkata through a Volvo AC Bus bearing No. 30361 (Royal Cruiser) and the date of journey was 21.04.2019. Total fare of tickets was Rs. 7,700/-. On 10.04.2019, complainant cancelled one ticket standing in the name of Dr. A. Banerjee and the OP-1 refunded Rs. 1,142.75/- to him after deducting Rs. 357.25/- as cancellation charge.

Further case of the complainant is that on the schedule date at about 6.45 P.M.  they had been to the boarding location to avail Volvo AC Bus but the bus operator told that their tickets have been cancelled and forcibly step down them from the bus with luggage. Finding no other alternative, the complainant make alternative arrangement to reach Kolkata by incurring Rs. 6,000/-. The OP-1 has been grossly negligent and deficient in their service and equally negligent in refunding the bus fare. Ultimately, complainant issued legal notice dated 30.04.2019 to the OP-1 directing them to refund Rs. 12,000/- as bus fare and compensation within 07 days from the date of receipt the notice but such notice was unattended. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum with the reliefs as mentioned in the prayer of the complaint.

Despite of service of notice, the OPs did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.

Points for Determination

1) Whether the complainant had booked 05 Volvo AC Bus tickets for availing bus bearing No. 303061 (Royal Cruiser) for travelling from Siliguri to Kolkata on  21.04.2019  through OP-2 against payment of Rs. 7,700/-?

2) Whether the OP-1 is deficient in rendering services to the complainant?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-

All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            Complainant led his evidence on affidavit. In analyze the argument, evidence and documents on record, it is clear that complainant had booked 05 tickets through OP-2 for their journey from Siliguri to Kolkata though a Volvo AC Bus (Royal Cruiser) against payment of Rs. 7,700/- and the date of journey was 21.04.2019. It is true that complainant cancelled one ticket (Seat No. 40) on 10.04.2019 and the OP-1 refunded Rs. 1,142.75/- after deduction cancellation charges of Rs. 357.25/-

The grievance of the complainant is that on the schedule date at about  6.45 P.M. they had been to the boarding location  at Tengzing  Norgey Bus Stand, Siliguri to avail the Volvo AC Bus but the bus operator  did not  allow them to avail the bus on the ground that their tickets  have been cancelled. Complainant and his family members make alternative arrangement to reach Kolkata and they incurred Rs. 6,000/- as bus fare.

There is no dispute that complainant issued legal notice dated 30.04.2019 to the OP-1 and the OP-1 replied such notice vide letter dated 23.05.2019 wherein they have admitted the fact of booking 05 tickets by the complainant through OP-2 and the booking were cancelled in accordance with cancellation policy as Redbus did not allow any partial cancellation. Thus, the OP-1 is no way liable to refund the booking amount as well as alternative bus fair. On perusal of the photocopies of e-ticket, it appears to us  that there is a provision for “partial cancellation”  and in terms of such clause the complainant  cancelled  one seat being No. 40 and the OP-1 refunded Rs. 1,142.75/- after cancellation charges of Rs. 375.25/-. Therefore, the stand taken by the OP-1 in their reply letter dated 23.05.2019 is not correct. Thus, the question of automatic cancellation of other seats has no leg to stand. The OP-1 therefore, was not justified to cancel the confirmed 04 tickets of the complainant. In our view, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. As such, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Thus, all the points under determination answered in the affirmative.

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP-1 with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and also dismissed ex parte against the OP-2 without any cost.

The OP-1 is directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only to the complainant along with litigation cost within 30 days from the date of this order.

The OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the complainant  for harassment and mental agony within the stipulated period, failing which the decreetal amounts, referred to above will bear simple interest  at the rate of  5  percent per annum till realization.