Dtd. 09. 01. 2023

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

The instant case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 arises from the grievances of the complainant in the matter of payment of booking money to a tour operator against a proposed tour to Europe, cancellation of the said trip in view of the pandemic situation prevailing in the entire world and the tour operator’s subsequent denial to refund the booking money.

The fact of the case is that the complainant, a retired school teacher and a pension holder being desirous of touring Europe, made contact with the Salt Lake, Kolkata branch office of opposite party No.1 over telephone. However after certain rounds of negotiations, over the phone as well as across the table in the complainant’s residence, the booking of the said trip under the plan ‘Best of Europe’ which was to start on 24.04.2020 was finalized. Consequent upon that, the complainant claims to have handed over a cheque of Rs.35,000/- on 07.01.2020 to the opposite party i.e. Voyagers Club Tours Pvt. Ltd. The sales Representative of the opposite party issued a money receipt against the same. The complainant has annexed a photocopy of the said money receipt along with his petition.

However, in view of the pandemic situation the country came to a standstill in the last week of March 2020 and naturally the trip was cancelled.

Consequent upon the same, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the booking money, by his communication dated 11.07.20. Thereafter, in spite of repeated persuasion the opposite parties were thoroughly reluctant to make the refund.

Reportedly, the opposite parties started making certain correspondences through a social media platform with the complainant expressing their denial to make the refund, assigning one or the other reason. They also tried to express their intention to postpone the trip to some other date when the pandemic would be over. However, the complainant stuck to the cancellation of the trip for ever.

Eventually, the complainant was compelled to send a legal notice to all the opposite parties on 14.10.2020. However, the same was also an exercise in utter futility as the notices sent to two of the opposite parties were turned back with the postal remarks like ‘left’ and ‘door closed’.

Allegedly, on 31.01.2021 some unknown men visited the complainant’s place and warned him of dire consequences in case of further persuasion in this matter from his end.

Considering the above as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant approached to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the opposite parties to make refund of the advance booking money of Rs.35,000/- along with the accrued interest and compensation of Rs.65,000/- for his mental pain and agony.

           In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

 The complainant is a resident within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/- Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Decision with reasons:- At the very outset it will be worth mentioning that none of the opposite parties appeared before this Commission even in a single occasion, in spite of proper service of notice at least on the key opposite party. In the instant case, all the opposite parties belong to the same organization. Thus, there was no submission of written version and evidence on affidavit. Resultantly, the case runs ex parte against all the opposite parties.

Materials on records are perused.                                                                

The petitioner has submitted postal track report to substantiate the service of notice on the opposite party No.1. Besides, the copy of the communication through e-mail made by the complainant to the opposite party and the copy of the money receipt are also filed.

Now, in absence of any representation made from the opposite parties’ end, this Commission does not find any reason to disbelieve the contents of the complaint petition.

Moreover, in absence of any written version and evidence on affidavit on the opposite parties’ part, the point of contention presented by the complainant remains unchallenged.

Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion this Commission is of the opinion that there was apparent deficiency of service and grossly unfair trade practice on the opposite parties’ part.

However had there been any threat from the opposite parties’ part, the complainant should have approached to the appropriate law enforcing authority by filing an F.I.R.

Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

that the complaint case no.29/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part. The opposite parties will be jointly liable to pay the advance booking money of Rs.35,000/-  along with interest @9% p.a. for the period from date of encashment of the cheque issued by the complainant as advance booking money to the date of refund of the said advance booking money by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order.

The opposite parties will be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards consumer legal aid account in case of non-compliance of this order within the scheduled date.     

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.