Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4118
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
P. Jeyasuresh Jayaraj, The Managing Trustee, Keswick Public School – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, M/s. Cox and Kings Limited – Respondent
F.A. No.34/2022 | C.C.No.94/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. R. Ramesh
For the Respondents: Called absent
The court emphasized the importance of fair opportunity for representation in consumer disputes, ruling that procedural failures should not prevent merit-based hearings.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Complaint filed against service provider for deficiency in service - Dismissal for non-filing of proof affidavit - Appellant seeks to remand matter for fresh disposal - Opportunity for compliance granted by appellate authority. (Para 3)
(B) Fair Opportunity - Right to be heard and represents ought to be respected - Non-representation not to be seen as willful failure, provided chance for merits' hearing is justified. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant had arranged a trip for teachers but faced numerous deficiencies from the tour operator including failure to provide booked services and timely travel documents leading to an unsatisfactory experience and claim for refunds.
Findings of Court:
The appeal is allowed on grounds of justice to allow the appellant a chance for lawful representation and proper disposal of the case.
Issues: Whether the non-filing of proof affidavit constitutes a wilful failure warranting dismissal of the case? The court recognized the need for fresh consideration on the merits of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that refusing representation based on non-compliance without assessing merits denies fairness and must not be summarily dismissed.
Result: Appeal allowed; case remanded back for fresh determination by District Commission.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. deficiency in service by the tour operator. (Para 2) |
| 2. dismissal based on procedural non-compliance. (Para 3) |
| 3. importance of fair representation in consumer cases. (Para 4) |
| 4. remand for fresh hearing after compliance. (Para 5) |
THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)
1. The complainant before the District Commission is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that in April, 2017, the complainant had approached the opposite party to arrange a trip to Malaysia for his school’s long standing teachers from 26.04.2017 to 30.04.2017. The opposite party quoted a sum of Rs.50,000/- per head, which included the complete package of Air Fare, Meals on Flights, Travel Insurance and accommodation which has been upgraded to four star Hotel Dorsett in Kuala Lumpur and all food, transfers, entrances and sightseeing as per itinerary in a private vehicle exclusively for this group of 8 members. On 06.04.2017, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Inspite of several queries made by the complainant with regard to tour programme, the opposite party failed to furnish the same. Without making any arrangements for tour, the staff Ms. Jyoti Shetty demanded a further payment of Rs.40,000/-. He made a further payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.04.2017. Though all the travel documents were kept ready in the complainant’s office, the opposite party failed to pick up them despite many reminders. Hence, the complainant sent a mail on 13.04.2017 to the opposite party, but there was no reply. When he called the opposite party’s helpline on 14.04.2017, they apologized for the behavior of Ms. Jyoti Shetty. Further, after several reminders from 15.04.2017, the complainant received the e-visas only on 24.04.2017. Though the final payment was made, the opposite party did not release the hotel and other travel vouchers. Before the departure, Mr. Nitin Menon and Ms. Jyoti Shetty not only demanded sponsorship letters and placed it as a condition for releasing of hotel vouchers. Further, instead of arranging the Four Star Hotel Dorsett, they arranged a Cheaper Hotel Royale Bintang which was not accepted by the complainant. However, unable to bear the harassment of the opposite party, the complainant sent confirmation letters under protest. Even then, they proceeded to harass the complainant for Rs.15,000/- more for hotel Dorsett. On 25.04.2017, the complainant’s employees waited and left for Trichy with only e-tickets and eNTRIs. Only after the employees’ checked in at Trichy Airport, the complainant received mail from the opposite party with tickets, eNTRIs, insurance papers and confirmation voucher with same hotel Royale Bintang which was not accepted by the complainant. Further, the opposite party did not provide any food for his employees and no representatives were present at Kuala Lumpur airport to receive them. They did not provide rooms at Hotel Dorsett as they promised. The complainant himself arranged on his own for accommodation of his employees as well as for their food, travel, all entry tickets and also the guide for sightseeing. At each and every point the opposite party perfectly proved to their maximum to be the most deficient in service. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 16.07.2017, for which, they gave an evasive reply. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards ticket and visa charges, tour and entrance charges, food on all days and accommodation at Four Star Hotel Dorsett in Malaysia and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony suffered due to the negligence of the adversary with interest at 12% from the date of the complaint till the date of payment and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost.
3. Inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the complainant, there was no repres
