Back
2010(1) CPR 251 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Aurangzeb —Appellant
versus
M/s. Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No. 366 of 2005
Decided on 9.11.2009
For the Petitioner:Ms. Madhusmita and Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Tej Krishan, Branch Manager of the Respondent.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2 and 14—Air Travel Agent—Liability—Appellant filed a complaint alleging that he handed over original title deeds pertaining to his properties to respondent, Travel Agent to enable it to get visas for appellant—Appellant and his family members were given visas for a tour to Canada and United States of America—On his returning from Canada, appellant requested respondent to return the original title deeds but respondent failed to return the same—According to appellant, he had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 as he was not liable to lease the properties in question—Title deeds were given to the Canada High Commission in order to get the visas—No evidence as to who had sent title deeds to the Canada High Commission—No evidence that the Canada High Commission had returned these documents to the respondent—Whether respondent, travel agent could be held liable to return the said documents—(No) —Documents were not in its possession.
Held: In the aforesaid two letters, it is stated that the Original Title Deeds were submitted to the Canada High Commission in order to get the visas. In the letters, it has not been clarified as to who had sent the Title Deeds to the High Commission. Appellant had asked the Canada High Commission to return the above-said documents. It is not disputed that the Title Deeds have been submitted to the Canada High Commission to obtain the visas. There is no evidence to show that the Canada High Commission had returned these documents to the respondent. It is for the appellant to obtain the documents from the Canada High Commission. The respondent cannot be held liable to return the said documents as they are not in its possession.
The appellant has erred in not arraying the Canada High Commission as party respondent to whom ultimately the documents were handed over. Had Canada High Commission been present, then, it could be ascertained as to who had handed over the Title Deeds to it or as to whether the same had been returned and, if so, to whom they had been returned. The petitioner should have proceeded against the Canada High Commission for return of documents and not against the respondent. Under the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the appellant. (Paras 9 & 10)
The appellant has claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000 for the loss of documents. Mere loss of documents, if any, as has rightly been observed by the State Commission, will not affect the title to the property .The certified copy of these documents can be obtained from the registering authorities. . Appellant has not led any evidence to show that because of loss of document, he had suffered the loss of Rs.20,00,000. In view of the reasons stated above, we endorse the findings recorded by the State Commission. (Para 11)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Ashok Bhan, President— Petitioner herein, who was the complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), has filed the present first appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) against the Final Order dated 27.7.2005 passed by the State Commission in complaint No.215 of 2002. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
The appellant filed the Complaint with the allegation that on the basis of the brochure issued by the respondent/opposite party, tickets were booked by the appellant for himself and his family members for a tour to Canada and United State of America in the month of April, 2000. He had handed over the Original Title Deeds pertaining to his following properties, viz., (i) No.1, Cleveland Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore and (ii) No. 150/1, Infantry Road, Bangalore, to the respondent to enable it to get the visas for the appellant and his family members for the above-said tour. Appellant and his family members were given visas and they completed the tour. On his returning from Canada, appellant requested the respondent to return the Original Title Deeds but the respondent failed to return the same. According to the appellant, he had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 as he was not able to lease the properties in question to multi nationals. The appellant sought a direction to the respondent to return the Original Title Deeds pertaining to the properties together with Rs.20,00,000 towards loss of rent for one year w.e.f. November, 2004 to December, 2003 and other benefits, or, in the alternative, to pay Rs.20,00,000 as damages towards the loss of the Original Title Deeds and mental agony together with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization.
3. Respondent, on being served, filed its written statement denying its liability to pay any damages taking the plea that the above-said two Title Deeds were given to the Canada High Commission and, therefore, it was for the appellant to collect the said Title Deeds from the Canada High Commission. Further, the case of the respondent was that if at all the respondent had suffered any loss on account of non-availability of the Title Deeds, it was for the Canada High Commission to make good the loss, if any, suffered by the appellant and not the respondent. It was specifically averred in the reply that the appellant had not handed over the Title Deeds to the respondent and the same were directly sent by the appellant to the Canada High Commission.
4. Canada High Commission was not arrayed as the party respondent. Parties led their evidence.
5. The State Commission, after taking into account, the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant had not handed over the Title Deeds to the respondent and it was for the appellant to retrieve the Title Deeds himself from the Canada High Commission directly. It was also held that even assuming that the said documents were handed over by the appellant to the respondent for the purpose of obtaining visas for tour to Canada, the same were sent to the Canada High Commission on behalf of the appellant, then, it was for the Canada High Commission to return the documents. It was not the case of the petitioner/complainant that the title deeds were not handed over to the Canada High Commission. Appellant had failed to implead the Canada High Commission as the party respondent. It was further observed that in any case, mere loss of documents will not affect the title to the properties. On the basis of the above-said findings, the Complaint was dismissed.
6. Counsel for the appellant contends that the documents were handed over by the appellant to the respondent and, in order to establish this, re
