Order No. 35 dt. 22/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant availed a package tour of visiting for 11 days of Europe tour and paid advance amount of Rs.1 lakh to o.p. The officials of o.p. intimated the complainant that they could not provide accommodation in the tour programme namely Best of 11 days in Europe tour and offered to join in their next tour of Europe. The complainant being frustrated not to avail of the said tour demanded the amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest but the said demand of money was not replied. The complainant subsequently filed a case u/s 156(3) CRPC before the Ld. C.J.M. Purulia u/s 420 / 416 / 403 against the o.p. and the said case was sent to Jhalda P.S. and charge sheet was submitted against the officials of o.p. The o.p. prayed for quashing said proceeding but the same was dismissed. The said case is still proceeding. But the o.p. has not paid the said amount of Rs.1 lakh. Because of the gross negligence on the part of the o.p., the complainant filed this case praying for refund the amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant visited the office of o.p. on or about 1st week of May 2007 to avail the package tour named Best of 11 days in Europe tour along with his family members. Said booking was made. After the booking was done photocopies of certain documents which were/are mandatory for the purpose of application of visa namely income tax return for the preceding 3 years, bank statement and leave certificate from the respective schools of the children were sought for from the complainant in order to enable the o.p. to apply to different consulates for obtaining visa. The complainant failed and neglected to furnish those documents as a result of which visa could not be provided and the complainant could not avail of the said tour programme. At the time of signing the booking form there was clearly mentioned that ‘on behalf of the persons I have read and accepted the booking condition mentioned over leaf and as in brochure’. The said declaration clearly stated that the complainant had gone through the terms and conditions along with the brochure and thereafter had taken the decision.
In spite of repeated requests the complainant could not provide those documents and the complainant demanded the amount of Rs.1 lakh which cannot be given to the complainant because there is a chart for returning of the charges in case of not availing of the tour by the person booked for the trip to visiting aboard countries and as per said chart the complainant will not be entitled to get the full amount as claimed by him. Accordingly the o.p. prayed or dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant paid advance of Rs.1 lakh to o.p. for the tour conducted by o.p.
- Whether the complainant failed to provide the documents as demanded by o.p.
- Whether the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh in advance for confirmation of booking in the said tour programme and the o.p. handed over some documents showing details of tour programme and he submitted the said application after filing up the said form. After the completion of the formalities the complainant was confident that he can avail of the said tour but subsequently in the 2nd week of May 2007 the complainant was informed that they cannot be provided with the accommodation of the tour programme and offered them to join in the next trip. The complainant became frustrated and demanded the said advance money of rs.1 lakh but since no action was taken the complainant filed a criminal case before the Ld. C.J.M. Purulia and subsequently charge sheet was submitted and the case is still pending. Since the o.p. committed the deficiency in service therefore the complainant filed this case and prayed for relief.
Ld. lawyer for he o.p. argued that the complainant did not provide the documents for availing of visas and for that reasons visas were not available for which the complainant and his family members could not be accorded in the said tour programme. It was further stated that as the date of journey was already fixed and airline tickets as well as hotel booking had to be made in advance by o.p. for the entire group of the said tour and in spite of repeated requests the complainant failed to provide those documents namely income tax return for the preceding 3 years, bank statement and leave certificate from the respective schools of the children, therefore the visa could not be provided and the complainant could not be accommodated in the said tour programme. The charges in case of cancellation of tour programme was mentioned in the brochure supplied with the application for providing the said tour programme, therefore, the complainant will not be entitled to get the amount as claimed by him.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh to o.p. which has not been denied by o.p. for providing foreign tour to the complainant and his family members. The o.p. claimed that the complainant failed to provide the information sought for by o.p. including the documents namely income tax return for the preceding 3 years, bank statement and leave certificate from the respective schools of the children. But the o.p. though claimed that those documents were not provided but o.p. cannot provide a single correspondence wherefrom it can be evident that the complainant was provided with such information for providing those documents before hand, on the contrary, it is crystal clear that the complainant filed a criminal case against the o.p. before the Ld. C.J.M. Purulia and charge sheet was submitted against the o.p. and the said case is still pending for disposal. The o.p. went to Hon’ble High Court against such proceeding for quashing the same which was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court. In spite of such background of the fact the complainant was not provided with the money paid by him to o.p. The o.p. after taking the money in the year 2007 has now taken this plea that necessary charges would be deducted for cancellation of the tour programnme but the complainant had no role to play in the cancellation of the said tour, on the contrary, the o.p. had not taken any effective step for which the complainant failed to provide those documents. In order to avoid the payment of money and compensation the o.p. has taken such false plea that the complainant was at fault for not availing of that tour, such plea is not at all believable particularly when the complainant without any hesitation paid Rs.1 lakh in advance and subsequently after the cancellation the tour the complainant only demanded the money which was refused without giving any reason whatsoever, resulting in initiation of criminal proceeding against the o.p. considering all these aspects we hold that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.132/2011 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
