Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA
SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER, DIPA SEN (MAITY), MEMBER
SOTC Travel Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Begraj Agarwal & Anr. - Respondents
First Appeal No. A/1109 of 2017
Decided on : 12-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Ms. Punam Kumari Choudhury, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Subhasis Saha, Advocate.
The obligation of the tour company to provide evidence of expenses incurred and the court's authority to modify the judgment to ensure just compensation.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Travel Tour - Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Section 12] - The court discussed the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the Act, the terms and conditions of the tour itinerary, cancellation policy, and the obligation of the tour company to provide evidence of expenses incurred. The court highlighted the lack of evidence provided by the tour company to justify the refund amount and the negligence contributed by the complainants. The court modified the judgment, directing the appellants to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, a couple, booked a tour for 'All of Europe' but had to cancel due to an accident. They demanded a refund of Rs. 1,60,984 along with compensation and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tour company failed to provide evidence of expenses incurred and did not justify the refund amount. The court also noted the negligence contributed by the respondents.
Issues: Deficiency in services, cancellation policy, obligation to provide evidence of expenses incurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court modified the judgment, directing the appellants to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents without further liability.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment, directing the appellants to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents without further liability.
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgment/Final Order being Order No. 21 dated 7.9.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (for short, learned District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 110/2014. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 12 of the Act on contest with the direction upon the Opposite Parties/Appellants to refund the amount of Rs. 1,64,984 only to the complainants along with compensation of Rs. 20,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000 within thirty days from the of communication of order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its total realisation.
2. The Respondents herein being Complainants lodged the complaint before the learned District Forum stating that being spouses of each other being allured by the publication and/or advertisement by several means and ways, the complainants came in contact with OP No. 1 Company for travel in the European countries scheduled to have commenced from 17.7.2013 later on it shifted to 18.7.2013. The complainants have stated that as per demand, they paid Rs. 82,000 initially and Rs. 1,02,984 subsequently aggregating Rs. 1,84,984 towards expenses of such tour. On 5.7.2013 the complainant No. 1 met a road traffic accident at Kolkata for which he was admitted to Belle Vue Nursing Home on that date. Subsequently, the complainant No. 1 was shifted to Sant Paramanand Hospital in New Delhi for better medical treatment where he was released on 10.7.2013 and for such treatment, the complainants had to incur expenses of Rs. 1,85,630.85. On the ground of ailment of complainant No. 1 pertaining to the bodily accident inflicted on 5.7.2013, the tour programme was cancelled on the same date over telephone and the complainants demanded for refund or repayment of the money so far paid towards expenses for the tour. The complainants requested the respondent No. 1 Company to deduct the money from their deposit which was actually spent therefrom for Rs. 14,000 for obtaining U.K. Visa. The complainants have stated that they have obtained information about the hotel booking in abroad that no such accommodation in any hotel abroad was booked in the names of the complainants. However, on 16.7.2013 the OP Company sent one cheque for Rs. 19,944 out of Rs. 1,84,984 paid by them without any break up or any basis. After receipt of the cheque, complainants wrote to the OPs on 16.9.2013 and demanded Rs. 1,60,984 but it turned a deaf ear. Hence, the respondents approached the learned District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services with prayer for several reliefs, viz. – (a) to direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs. 1,60,984 along with interest @ 12% p.a.; (b) to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for harassment and mental agony; (c) litigation costs, etc.
3. The Appellants being Opposite Parties by filing a written version have admitted that the payment by the complainants amounting to Rs. 1,84,984 towards the expenses of the tour for ‘All of Europe’ departing on 7.7.2013. The OPs have stated that after knowing the terms and conditions of tour itinerary and the tour price list, the complainants had signed the booking form in acceptance of the booking conditions. According to OPs, the total cost of tour per person was Rs. 1,98,000 + 3.09% = Rs. 2,04,118 but the complainants have paid Rs. 1,84,984 leaving a balance of Rs. 2,23,252. The OPs have stated that as there was no negligence or deficiency in services on the part of them, the complaint should be dismissed.
4. On evaluation of materials on record, the learned District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon OPs, as indicated above. Challenging the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the pres
