| Complaint Case No. CC/22/29 | | ( Date of Filing : 12 Apr 2022 ) |
| | | | 1. Khusi Ram Nankani | | S/o: Rajhumal Nankani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 2. Sharda Nankani | | W/o: Khusi Nankani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 3. Jiwan Pradhwani | | S/o: Belamal Pradhwani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 4. Shanti Devi Pradhwani | | W/o: Jiwan Pradhwani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 5. Umadevi Pradhwani | | W/o: Belamal Pradhanwani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 6. Nandalal Pradhwani | | S/o: Belamal Pradhawani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 7. Anjana Devi Pradhwani | | W/o: Nandalal Pradhwani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 8. Jayadevi Pradhwani | | W/o: Ramesh Kumar Pradhwani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 9. Ramesh Kumar Pradhwani | | S/o: Belamal Pradhwani, Vill.: Kumardangi, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 10. Kamal Sarkar | | S/o: Late Ramendra Nath Sarkar, Vill.: New Ukilpara, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 11. Usha Fogla | | W/o: Modanlal Fogla, Vill.: Ukilpara, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 12. Biswanath Dutta | | S/o: Late Motilal Dutta, Vill.: Ukilpara, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 13. Malabika Dutta | | W/o: Biswanath Dutta, Vill.: Ukilpara, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 733134. | | 14. Ganesh Rajvanshi | | S/o: Late Bhonabhai Rajvanshi, Vill.: Jain Mandir Road, P.O.: Barsoi Bazar, P.S.: Barsoi, Dist.: Katihar, Bihar, Pin:855102. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. ZMS Digital Private Limited | | Represented by the proprietor, Shain Ali, S/o: Sabed Ali, 39/42, Birnagar Girls School Road, Near Bidhan Manch, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 33134. | | 2. The Proprietor | | Ziyan Travels, Girls School Road, Near Birnagar Electricity, P.O. & P.S.: Raiganj, Dist.: U/ Dinajpur, Pin: 33134. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Today is fixed for admission hearing. Ld. Advocate for the petitioners is present by filing hazira. Khusi Ram Nankani & 13 others as petitioners have jointly filed an application U/s 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 describing themselves as a group of relative & friends, residents of Raiganj, situated within jurisdiction of this Commission. Their case is that the petitioners together made a tour programme in the year 2020 and they met with O.P / respondents, the travel agent, who took total responsibility for the up and down journey tickets by railway and air, fixed on 09.05.2020 from Bagdogra to Udaypur and 17.05.2020 from Delhi to Bagdogra through air. They provided total fair for train and air and the respondents duly booked their tickets but unfortunately lockdown due to Covid-19 was declared in March, 2020 and all trains and flights were cancelled by the order of the Government and booking amounts of train and air tickets were refunded to the account of the respondents without deducting any charges but the respondents paid / returned the train fair after deducting some charges to the petitioners and did not refund Rs.1,96,236/- to the petitioners against the cancellation of flight tickets & when the O.Ps did not pay heed to petitioner’s request they sent a legal notice on 17.03.2022 through their Advocate but efforts gone in vain. Thus this application is filed praying for return of Rs.1,96,236/- against cancellation of air tickets with Rs.1,00000/- for harassment and deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost. Heard Ld. Advocate for the petitioners and perused the documents produced on behalf of the petitioners. It is apparent that the petitioners, having common interest lodged this application and they are the consumers of the O.P Z.M.S Digital Private Limited under the Proprietorship of Shain Ali, who took the responsibility for the tour programme of the petitioners in the year 2020 and on due payment of money railway tickets as well as air tickets were purchased / reserved by the O.Ps / Agent (s) including up journey on 09.05.2020 from Bagdogra to Udaypur and down journey on 17.05.2020 from Delhi to Bagdogra through air. Admittedly, the Government declared lockdown due to Covid-19 in the month of March, 2020 and all trains and flights were cancelled by the order of the Government. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents paid / refunded the train fair to the petitioners after deducting some charges. How much amount was deducted as charges that has neither been disclosed nor found from any document. Presumably deduction would be towards “ S.CH or SF.CH” as shown in reserved tickets. In this case it does not include in the claim. Their main case is that though they have paid 1,96,236/- towards booking of air tickets but respondents did not refund the same against the cancellation of flight tickets. Ld. advocate for the petitioners pointed out to the documents dated 15.05.2020 i.e Credit Shell Bill. The particulars runs as follows:- Dear customer, we’ve got you covered. In view of the Government directive to extend the lockdown to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak, Spice Jet has suspended all its flight operations till 17 May 2020. We are cancelling the reservation of those who booked themselves for travel till 17 May 2020. Upon cancellation your entire amount will be maintained in a CREDIT SHELL and the same may be used to make fresh booking and travel till 31 March 2021. There is no specific pleading and document to the effect that the petitioners tried to book afresh and travel till 31 March 2021 against the amount maintained in Credit Shell. Thus, no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps is found / established. We are of the view that without availing of the remedy available mentioned above the petitioners took the legal recourse i.e legal notice & filing of this complaint under wrong and misconceived impression, which is not tenable and therefore the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Hence, it is O r d e r e d that the application U/S 35 of C.P.Act, 2019, registered as C.C 29/2022 be and the same is rejected. Let a copy of this order be given to the petitioners free of cost. | |
