West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/104/2022

Smt. Narayani Mondal, W/O- Kanai Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bubai Ghosh, Proprietor of Annapurna Travels - Opp.Party(s)

Siddhartha De

31 May 2023

ORDER

Today is fixed for passing ex-parte order/judgment

 The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs.79,000/- from Sekh Jamaluddin @ Jamal Bhai + Compensation – Rs.30,000/- + Litigation Cost – Rs. 10,000/- total = Rs.1,19,000/-.  

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant and her friends and relatives plan to visit Balurghat to Benaras via Gaya, Budhgaya, Hariyana, Haridwar, Mathura, Brindaban, Gokul, Radhakunja, Shyamkunja, Kuruskhetra, Punjab, Swarnamandir, Ajodhya for 18 days around 59 persons and Kumarganj to Suryagangashan via Deoghar, Gaya, Budhgaya, Benaras, Allahabad, Chitrakut, Agra, Gokul, Mathura, Brindaban, Radhakunja, Shyamkunj, Joypur, Rajbari, Hawamahal, Jolmahal, Kuruskhetra, Udaypur, Puskar, Sabitri, Ajmer, Gujarat, Dwaraka, Vet Dwaraka, Gandhinagar, Somnath, Haridwar, Rishikesh,Ramjhola, Ajodhya, Rammandir, SurjagangaShan for 24 days around 59 persons. For this two tour the Complainant made two separate contract with Opposite Party No.1 under the influence of Opposite Party No.2 &3 on 25.08.2022 & 11.08.2022 respectively and also advance Rs.11,000/- on 25.08.2022 and Rs.5,000/- on 11.08.2022. The total amount of contract was Rs.4,20,000/- & Rs.2,50,000/- = Rs.6,70,000/-, out of Rs.6,70,000/- the Complainant paid Rs.63,000/- in seven installment to the Opposite Party No.2 from the account of the grandson of the Complainant namely Anik  Mondal through paytm. But on the date of above mentioned tour the Opposite Party No.1 did not sent his bus or any other any other car as per contract. As a result, the Complainant and her friends & relatives faced great difficulties and they have to rent another car with huge money for their tour. Thereafter, after return from tour the Complainant repeatedly went to the Opposite Parties for refund of their money verbally, but all efforts were in vain. Having no alternative, the Complainant filed this case for redress.

        It appears from the case record that notice were issued to the Opposite Parties  but after receiving the notice the Opposite Parties did not appear in this case so, the case is proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

To prove his case, the complainant has submitted the following documents-

(I) Photo copy of contract dated 11.08.2022

(ii) Photo copy of contract dated 25.08.2022

(iii) Photo copy of e-payment dated 12.08.2022, 16.08.2022, 24,08,2022, 27.08.2022 of Rs.33, 000/-

(iv) Photo copy of e-payment dated 13.09.2022, 15,09,2022 of Rs.30,000/-

(v) Photo copy of list of passengers

(vi) Aadhar Card of the Complainant.

 

                                         DECISION  WITH  REASONS

          

             We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the Complainant.  Perused the case record and the documents filed by the Complainant.

 On perusal of the contract paper in between the parties dated 11.08.2022 and 25.08.2022 it appears that there had been a contract for a tour to visit the places as mentioned in the plaint. The allegation of the Complaint is that on the date of journey, the Opposite Parties did not send bus for tour. The allegation of the Complainant can not be disbelieved because in spite of receiving notice of the case, the Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission to contest the case.  Again, on perusal of the documents regarding e-payment, it appears that a sum of Rs.63,000/- has been paid through paytm. It also appears from the contract paper that the Complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as advance at the time of contract. Thus, the Complainant has paid total Rs. 5,000/- + Rs.11,000/- + Rs.63,000/- = Rs.79,000/- to the Opposite Parties. All this amount has been received by Opposite Party No.2 on behalf of the Annapurna Travels.  As the Opposite parties did not challenge the case of the Complainant despite of valid service of notice. We opine that the case of the Complainant is genuine and she is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

         In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 Hence, it is

                                                       O R D E R E D

             

   That the Consumer Case No. 104 of 2022 is hereby allowed ex parte in part but with cost against the Opposite Parties.   

           The Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly or severally  a sum of Rs.79,000/- together with an interest @ 8% p.a. from 10.10.2022 till the full realization to the Complainant by issuing an account payee cheque within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Parties are further directed to  pay Rs. 10,000/- toward Compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost  within 45 days from the date of passing of this order by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.