BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 599 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.11/2020 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

1. The Archana Travels, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri B.Boji Reddy, Office at 11-14-518/1, Ground Floor, Siris Road, Snehapuri Colony, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District-74.

2. Sri B.Boji Reddy, Proprietor of Archana Travels, O/o Archana Complex, 1st Floor, Bhainsa, Adilabad District, Telangana, 504104.

………..Appellants/ Opposite Parties And:

1. Shiva Karunkar, S/o Shiva Balaswamy, Aged about 53 years, 2. Smt. Shiva Haritha, W/o Shiva Karunakar, Aged about 46 years.

Both are R/o Flat No.314, 3^rd Floor, Sudaram Apartment, Rama Raju Nagar Colony, Suchitra Circle, Ranga Reddy District.

………Respondents/Complainants Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. K.V.R.Varma Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants : Sri P. Naveen Kumar HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER – (NJ)

MONDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *******

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, dated 01.06.2022 in CC 11/2020 and prays this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Commission below and may be pleased to pass such other order or orders which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainants No.1 & 2 being husband and wife along with others wished to plan an international tour and on the representation of the opposite parties, they were convinced to visit Dubai. The Opposite Parties along with their representatives approached the complainants in June 2019 stating that Dubai is the most beautiful city and travelling costs are also most economical. The opposite parties promised that right from the starting point of the journey, till they return home, the entire responsibility is theirs. Further the opposite parties promised that if any inconvenience is caused, the entire amount will be repaid to the complainants with a bonafide intention not to cause any inconvenience to their customers. After negotiations a full and final package was fixed at Rs.1,16,000/-. The complainants paid the entire amount for the package commencing from 09.08.2019 to 14.08.2019. Suddenly 04 days before the date of travel, complainant No.1 was affected with high fever and was diagnosed with dengue and admitted in the hospital. The complainants intimated their intention to withdraw from the travel plans and the opposite parties promised to return the amount to the complainants within a short time. Despite their promise, the opposite parties have failed to return the amount to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants issued the legal notice to the opposite parties on 29.10.2019. Although, the legal notice was received by the opposite parties, they neither paid the amount nor did they reply to the said legal notice. As there is no other alternative, the complainants have approached the Commission for redressal and seek the reliefs as prayed for supra.

3. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 were called absent before the Commission below.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex. A1 to A8. The counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.

5. The District Commission, after hearing and considering the material on record, “allowed the complaint in part, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directing to refund Rs.1,10,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 08.01.2020 till the date of realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants. Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this ord