FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SMT.   SUKLA SENGUPTA,   PRESIDENT  

The petition of complaint is filed by the complainants U/s 35 of CP Act, 2019 along with a petition U/s 34 (2) (b) with a prayer to allow the complainants to file  the petition of complaint before the Commission because  some of the OPs are running their business outside of jurisdiction of this commission. Prayer was allowed.

The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the OP-1 is registered company under the Companies Act, 2013 working as travel and tourism agent and the OPs 2, 3 and 4 are the directors of the same.

It is further stated by the complainants that being induced by an advertisement of the OPs.  The complainants intend to go for travelling Europe and after discussion and confirmation of the OPs that they are going to organise a tour in May, 2020 for which the complainants being the agreed parties need to pay an advance amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- as booking amount of the said tour to be conducted on May, 2020 for three person. Believing the statement of the OPs, the complainant No. 1 paid Rs.  55,000/-, the complainant No. 2 paid Rs.  15,000/- and complainant No. 3 paid Rs.  35,000/-.

 It is further to mention here that the OPs also acknowledged such receipt of advance amount of Rs.1,05,000/- under proper receipt. All the money receipts have been attached herewith that annexure “A” collectively.

 It is further stated by the complainants that in the month of March, 2020 the said tour of Europe was cancelled and immediately, thereafter the complainants requested the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- as paid by them in advance for the said Europe tour. The OPs requested the complainants to wait for some time and assured that they would definitely refund the said advance amount to the complainants very soon. In the month of December, 2020 the complainants requested the OPs to book flight tickets for the complainants and deducted the price to that effect from the amount already paid by them. The OPs agreed to do the same and also booked the flight tickets for the complainants and an amount of Rs.  28,500/- was deducted from the said amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-. Thereafter, on several occasion, the complainants requested the OPs that to refund the balance amount of Rs.  76,500/- and the OPs again assured them that they would refund the same very shortly but in vain. Thereafter, the complainants sent an email dated 11.08.2021 with a request to refund the amount of Rs. 76,500/- and copy of email dated 11.08.2021 and 12.08.2021 have been collected attached herewith as annexure “B”. Thereafter, the OPs only paid Rs.  10,000/- to the  bank account of  complainant No. 1 on 12.08.2021. Subsequently, on 24.08.2021 a lawyer’s letter has been sent by the OPs to the complainant stating interalia that the OPs-1 had passed away in May, 2020 and they acknowledged the outstanding amount and asked for some time. The complainants objected the same vide letter dated 26.08.2021 and demanded the remaining amount Rs 76,500/-  immediately along with interest @ 12 % p.a. within 7 days from the receipt of the letter. Thereafter, the complainant sent a lawyer notice vide mail dated 28.09.2021 to the OPs and also duly posted through speed post with AD on 28.09.2021 which was duly received by the OP-2 on  01.10.2021 but the OPs did not refund the amount which caused harassment mental pain and agony to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this case is filed by the complainant with a prayer to give direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.66,500/- along with interest 12 % p.a.

The complainants further paid for compensation of Rs.  50,000/- for negligence, mental pain and agony along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

The OPs have contested the petition of complaint by filing a WV denying all the material allegation levelled against them.  

It is the case of the OPs that the complainants have no cause of action to file the case and the  case is not maintainable in eye of law.

It is further stated by the OPs that admittedly, they intending to arrange the tours and travels and it is also admitted fact that the complainants have paid for booking the flight tickets and other arrangements.

It is also stated by the OPs that the complainants have acknowledged Rs.28,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- totalling to Rs.38,500/- towards full and final settlement amount advanced by them after applicable deduction. It is denied by the OPs that the complainants are eligible for getting further amount of Rs.66,500/- with an interest of 12 % from the OPs. It is the case of the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer within ambit of CP Act, 2019 and is not entitled to get the amount as prayed for.

Hence, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In view of above facts and circumstances, it has to be decided by the Commission:-

1. Whether the case is maintainable as per law?

2. Are the complainants consumer?

3 Is the OPs a service provider if so, is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

4. Are the complainants entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons.

All the points of consideration are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

It is the case of the complainant that on and about 2019, they made contact with the OPs who used to organise a group tour to Europe and they paid a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to the OPs to organise such tour in May,  2020.  The complainant No. 1 paid Rs.55,000/-, the complainant No.  2 paid Rs.15,000/- and complainant No. 3 paid Rs.35,000/-. The receipt of such payments are available in the case record as annexure- A.

In this context, the OPs in their WV as well as in written argument had admitted the fact that in order to organise a Europe tour they received Rs.10,500/- from the complainants and issued money receipt to that effect. From such fact and evidence on record, it is revealed that the complainants paid money of Rs.1,05,000/- in advance to the OPs for conducting the tour to Europe. So, within the ambit of CP Act,  the complainants of the this case are the consumers and the OPs are the service provider.

On a close scrutiny on record as well as provisions of law, it is found that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law.

It is further case of the complainants that due to pandemic situation the proposed Europe tour was cancelled by the OPs. Then the complainants requested the OP Voyager Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.  to refund the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- as paid by the complainants in advance in order to conduct the Europe tour but the OPs did not refund the same till date. Subsequently, the OPs adjusted Rs.28,500/- for booking flight tickets for the complainants in the month of December, 2020 as per request of the complainants and then they paid Rs.10,000/- to the complainants in the month of  2021 which is also admitted fact and evident from the document as filed by the complainant. Then the balance amount would be of Rs.66,500/- to be refunded to the complainants by the OPs. But the OPs denied to refund the same and demanded that Rs. 28,500/- and Rs.10,000/- in total Rs.38,500/- was paid by booking the AIR tickets and payment of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final settlement of the amount advance by the complainants because the OPs acted as an agent on behalf of the complainants and all other entertaining tourists for arranging tickets, booking of hotel for accommodation, transportation etc. for the tour through their overseas counter agents/service provider. So, the complainant did not get amount of Rs. 66,500/- with interest @ 12 %. But the OPs failed to prove by any documentary evidence that they paid Rs.  38,000/- to the complainants towards full and final settlement and did not make any effort to contact the complainants in spite of repeated requests from their end and both of the parties to this case have served the lawyers notice to each other. But the OPs did not refund the balance amount so, the plea has taken by the OPs that they settled payment in full and final form by paying only Rs. 38,000/- to the complainants has no basis at all and they failed to prove the same by cogent evidence. In that case, this commission is of view that the complainants requested the OPs to refund the amount of Rs 66,500/- as paid by them as advance for conducting the Europe Tour, which was subsequently cancelled. But the OPs did not refund the same and harassed the complainants since long which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

On the basis of discussion made above, this commission is also of view that the complainants being the consumers within the ambit of CP Act could be able to prove their case by cogent document and evidence and the conduct of the OPs is amounts to deficiency in service for which they would be liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

In view of the discussions made above, the Commission is opined that the complainants have established and proved their case beyond all reasonable doubts and is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

All the points are thus decided favourably to the complainants.

The case is properly stamped.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is decreed against the OPs with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only.

The complainants to get the decree as prayed for.

The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.66,500/- (rupees sixty six thousand five hundred) only to the complainants either jointly or severally with interest @ 9 % on the amount from the date of fling of this case till realisation within  45 days from the date of order.  

The OPs are further directed to pay compensation to the complainants of a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) only either jointly or severally within  45 days from this date of order along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only.

If the OPs will fail to comply the decree within stipulated period as mentioned above the complainants would be at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

            Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as mandated by the CP Act. The Judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the party.