The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Consumer Forum must have the proper quorum, as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for deciding consumer complaints.

ORDER

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member - This appeal has been filed by org. opponent against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint No. 138/2008 decided on 18.6.2009. While allowing the complaint partly, Forum below directed the opponent to refund amount of Rs. 53,692 to the complainants towards fare from Johannesburg to Victoria Falls in Kenya and also directed to pay to the complainants Rs. 60,000 as compensation for mental harassment and directed to comply with the order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. As such, org. opponent-Kesari Tours Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai has filed this appeal.

2. All the facts need not to be stated. Suffice it to say that complainants had filed consumer complaint against opponent alleging deficiency in service on their part in not informing them before undertaking tour, their rejection of cisa to Zimbabwe and in not taking them to Victoria Falls due to non-obtaining of visa. They had booked tour of Kesari Tours Pvt. Ltd. for visiting Kenya and other countries. They had made certain payments which were not in dispute. They found that in the course of tour that they could not visit Zimbabwe and Victoria Falls because opponent had not obtained visa for Zimbabwe. On return from tour, complainants filed consumer complaint for alleged deficiency in service against the opponent.

3. Opponent filed written version and denied the allegations of deficiency in service. Opponent however contended that issuing visa is the sovereign function of the State. It is for that country whether to grant visa to any person or not. Hence, opponent pleaded that they could not be held responsible if they could not obtain visa for the complainants' tour from Zimbabwe. They had mentioned this fact in the brochure given to the complainants. They had specifically mentioned in the brochure that if the passengers need to cancel a tour due to rejection of visa or rejection of entry into the country, cancellation charges of the Company would be applicable and would be payable by the passengers. There would be no refund if the passenger or any member of his party is unable to travel due to said reasons. Opponent contended that they were not guilty of deficiency in service. They had tried to obtain visa from Kenya, but could not obtain the same within time, but even for this deprivation of this segment of the tour, they had offered Rs. 30,000 by way of compensation. A cheque was sent for that amount towards full and final settlement. Complainants accepted the same under protest and then sent it back and filed this consumer complaint. They pleaded that they were not deficient in service of any kind and complaint should be dismissed with costs.

4. Forum below after considering the documents and affidavits placed on record and after hearing Counsel for the parties held that Kesari Tours Pvt. Ltd. was guilty of deficiency in service and that they had deprived their customers (complainants) by keeping them totally in dark by not informing rejection of their visa before the complainants undertook said tour which according to the Forum below was highly deplorable on the part of opponent and therefore, Forum below was pleased to direct refund of Rs. 53,692, the amount of airfare from Johannesburg to Victoria Falls and also directed payment of Rs. 60,000 as compensation for mental agony. Aggrieved by this order, Kesari Tours Pvt. Ltd./org. opponent has filed this appeal.

5. We heard Mr. Harihar Bhave, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shool, Advocate for the respondents.

6. We need not go into the merits of the case. We are finding substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant when he argued before us that the judgment and award passed in this case by the District Consumer Forum should be quashed and set aside simply on the ground that the District Consumer Forum which decided the complaint in favour of the respondents was not properly constituted. Learned Cou