Quorum: Shri Jagdish Prabhudesai, President Shri Aremmy G. O. Fernandes, Member
Smt. Kala P. Dalal, Member

Complaint No.27/2006
Mr. John Fernandes,
H.No. 265,Orlim, Batty,
Salcette Goa ….. Complainant

V/s
The Proprietor,
Paramount Travels,
Near Longuinhos Bar & Restaurant,
Opp. Margao Residency (Tourist Hostel))
Margao Goa ,….. Opposite Party


Dated: 30.04.2009

O R D E R

(Per Shri Aremmy G. O. Fernandes- Member)

By this order we dispose of the Complaint dated 15.05.2006 filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (OP) herein under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Brief facts of the case are:

1.The Complainant, paid Rs. 8622/- to OP through Visa Credit card and booked three tickets for the 26.06.05, by Indian Airlines flight from Bombay to Goa. The tickets had to be subsequently cancelled . On cancellation the Complainant was assured by OP that the refund amount due would be credited to his account after one month, but he failed to do so. The Complainant followed with the OP over phone, emails, and through his brother. He also contacted the VISA to see if his account with them was credited and even issued legal notice dated 28.03.2006 but still the OP failed to refund the amount or even reply to the legal notice.

2.The Complainant has therefore filed this Complaint praying for directions to OP to pay the Complainant
a)Rs. 8622/- being cost of the tickets
b)Rs.2000/- being expenses incurred by Complainant towards telephone calls emails etc.
c)Rs. 3000/- as liquidated damages towards mental tension and cost of legal notice
d)Rs. 34185/-/- being cost of tickets incurred by him to come from Tokyo to Goa and back for filing this complaint with interest @ 12% from 24,04,06 till actual payment. and
e)Costs of this Complaint.

On issuance of summons the OP filed his written version on the following amongst other grounds

A.The OP raised preliminary objections that the Complaint is misconceived, mischievous, filed with the sole purpose of harassing the OP to damage his reputation at the business place. He also alleged that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, and that there is no cause of action and further alleged that it is malicious prosecution and abuse of Consumer Protection Legislation.

B.As regards the cancellation of the bookings he submitted that since the booking was done through the Visa card the refund due to cancellation was also required to be made in the same mode and therefore in this connection by letter dated 11.07.05 he informed ICICI Bank to do the needful and the bank as per their statement debited the amount of Rs. 7842/- (less cancellation charges) to his account on 31.03.06 and that as per banking practice once the account of the OP is debited the amount is also received by the Complainant in normal course. The OP has also prayed for dismissal of the Complaint and for exemplary penal costs and damages on the Complainant. He has denied the remaining allegations.

The Complainant as well as the OP filed their affidavits in evidence dated 26.04.07 and 10.07.2007 respectively interalia adopting their cases as set out in their pleadings. The Complainant also filed his final written arguments while the OP led his oral arguments.

Now on perusal of the records and the arguments advanced by the parties we proceed to record our findings and observations as would appear hereinafter.

I.At the outset we have to state that the preliminary objections raised by the OP are found not maintainable as in our opinion, the Complainant having paid for the tickets is very much a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and hence has every right to file this complaint subject to accrual of sufficient cause of action. Not refunding the amount due on cancellation, not replying to the legal notice or even causing delay in refund as in this complaint are some of the grounds which in our opinion justify raising of this dispute.

II.On merits of the case, we observe that the only issue that is agitated upon is as regards non receipt of the amount due by the Complainant as a result of cancellation of the tickets booked. The Complainant has alleged that the OP failed to refund the amount as assured after one month. It is also his case that thereafter he continuously followed up with the OP and even issued legal notice but the OP failed to do the needful. The OP however has denied these allegations; it is his contention that he had advised his bankers to do the needful and accordingly the amount was debited to his account on 31-03-2006 and in this connection has produced on record the letter to his bankers date 26.06.05 as well as the advice /statement of his bankers the ICICI bank confirming the said debit of Rs.7872/- to his account on 31.03.06. We have perused the said advise/statement and it is our observation that the amount as alleged has been debited to the account of OP on the said date. Consequently we hold there is no deficiency as far as the refund of the cancellation amount is concerned.

III.We however observe that this amount has been refunded after a lapse of almost 9 months after cancellation and this by no stretch of imagination can be construed as a reasonable period within which it is expected of the OP to refund the amount. We hence hold his to be a deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and to that extent hold the OP guilty of the said deficiency. The fact that the OP had advised his bankers on 26.06.2005 to do the needful does in no way affect our observation as above for the simple reason that what was required is receipt of the refund by the Complainant and this has been received by him on 31.03.2006 after inordinate delay of 9 months.

IV. It is also our observation that the actions of the Complainant also cannot be termed exactly praiseworthy. He has received the amount on 31. 03.2006 as acknowledged by him in his written arguments, but still filed this complaint praying for its refund on 05.05.2005 i.e. almost two months thereafter, it therefore does not appear to have been filed in good taste and therefore deserves to be penalized.

V. Now in the circumstances wherein both the parties are found to be at fault this Forum is of opinion that granting of any reliefs to either party would not be in the interest of justice. The Complaint is hence dismissed. No order as to costs.