Prof. S.K. Kar, Member — S.M. Agarwal as a complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleged that he made a payment of Rs. 13,060/- and Rs. 3,265/- for package tours conducted by the appellant for himself, his friends and one Mr. Ram Das Tebriwal. By the said package tour, the respondent and his associates wanted to visit Gangotri, Yamunetri, Kedarnath and Badrinath, situated at the hill range of Himalaya. The respondent also alleged that proper transportation, accommodation, taxi facilities were not provided to him and his associates by the appellant. As such, he prayed for compensation of Rs. 90,016/- for alleged loss and damages, suffered by the respondent and his associates.

2. The contention of the appellant who was the O.P. in the original petition of complaint is that Mr. S.M. Agarwal the sole complainant/ appellant had not visited the package tour as he was not the visitor. Neither Mr. S.M. Agarwal filed the complaint as a consumer association nor a Central or State Government. The Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides for a particular consumer service in private case lodge the complaint. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide any provision to lodge a complaint for friends or his associated in their behalf, when the complaint himself is not a consumer and Mr. S.M. Agarwal is not an actual consumer. As such, he has no locus-standi to move the Consumer Court without any proper authority from whom, he is representing the case. It is now where explained by S.M. Agarwal in the petition of complaint that how he is authorised to lodge a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on behalf of his friends and associates.

3. It is also the contention of the appellant as per tour literature supplied to the tourist that any dispute arising out of the package tour will be settled within the jurisdiction of Teheri Court.

4. It is further contention of the appellant that one tourist, viz. Ram Das Tebriwal for whom the relief was also claimed in the petition of complaint was a totally different person and who cancelled his ticket due to his heart attack and was prevented from making tour in a package tour programme by the Doctor as per advise letter.

5. It is also contended by the appellant that there was not at all any deficiency in service but. even assuming that there had been any deficiency in service that has not occurred within the jurisdiction of Calcutta District Forum. So the Calcutta District Forum has committed jurisdictional error by initiating the complaint made by the complainant/respondent. Inasmuch as the opposite parties No. 1,2 and 3 in the C.D.F. case were outside the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta District Forum and the opposite party No. 2charged with any deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint case filed before the C.D.F. ought to have been rejected on the alone ground of lacking in territorial jurisdiction.

6. It is again alleged by the appellant that the respondent even after request did not supply the vouchers of the expenses that he had incurred due to alleged non-availability of taxi service and accommodation. It is the allegation of the appellant that the respondent/complainant did not attach a single document/hotel bills or car rents etc. and the report from the local Police Station allegedly made by the complainant was not annexed with the petition of complaint before the C.D.F.

7. Further it was contended by the appellant that it required elaborate documentary and oral evidence to substantiate the case of the complainant before the C.D.F. and in absence of such cogent evidentiary documents and oral testimony, the case before the C.D.F. ought to have been rejected and by awarding the compensation of Rs. 51,000/- without any basis and reasons is not sustainable either in law or in facts. And the award passed by the C.D.F. is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the appellant relied upon a de