STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/740/2017 GNS LEISURE TRAVELS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 39/3993, VANTAGE POINT, GROUND FLOOR, VRM ROAD, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN- 682016. ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THONDIKKODAN ABDUL AZEEZ PRESENT ADDRESS - KOLOTHPARAMBU, NASWARAM, THONDIKKOTTIL, PUTHUR PALLIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM- 673636. ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

GNS LEISURE TRAVELS PVT LTD, N MOHANAN PILLAI (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

THONDIKKODAN ABDUL AZEEZ DATED: 21/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 740/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.07.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.253/2016 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

The Manager, GNS Leisure Travels Pvt. Ltd., 39/3993, Vantage Point, Ground Floor, VRM Road, Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 016 (by Adv. Jayakrishnan D.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Thondikkodan Abdul Azeez, S/o Mohammed Kutty, Kolothparambu, ‘Naswaram’, Thondikkottil, Puthur Pallikkal P.O., Malappuram – 673 636

2.

Uruni Kulavan Amina Kutty, W/o Thondikkodan Abdul Azeez, Kolothparambu, ‘Naswaram’, Thondikkottil, Puthur Pallikkal P.O., Malappuram – 673 636

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.253/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainants are husband and wife. The complainants advanced an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party on 22.03.2016 in connection with a tour package to UK and Europe, organised by the opposite party, which was scheduled to be conducted from 26.04.2016 onwards. The complainants also entrusted all the necessary documents with the opposite party for the said purpose. The opposite party agreed and assured that the opposite party would do everything for the smooth journey of the complainants. However, the opposite party did not get the travelling documents, including Visa, ready for the complainants to travel abroad under the tour package promised by the opposite party. The complainants alleged that the Visa and other travelling documents were denied to the complainants only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the said circumstances, the complainants demanded to refund the amount, which the opposite party declined.

3. The opposite party received the notice issued by the District Commission.

However, the opposite party did not file any version.

st

4. Before the District Commission, the 1 complainant filed proof affidavit.

Exhibits A1 to A10 were also marked for the complainants. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainants along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

5. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the respondents.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.

st

7. The 1 complainant filed affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief reiterating the contentions in the complaint. It is stated in the affidavit that the complainants advanced an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party on 22.03.2016 in connection with the tour package to UK and Europe organised by the opposite party, which was scheduled to be conducted from 26.04.2016 onwards. However, the complainants could not go abroad under the tour package. The complainants alleged that it was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party that the Visa of the complainants was no