DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 3^rd  day of June  2023.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 30.10.2019

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N    

C.C. No. 400/2019

COMPLAINANT

Chitambaran.P.D , Vidya College, Edappally Toll, Edappally P.O-682024

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Manager, Country Club Hospitality 7 Holidays Ltd., 3rd Floor, Metro Plaza, Ernakulam.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that on 1.4.2019, the complainant and his wife were called to the office of the opposite party in Ernakulam and talked about the tour to Thailand.  One week family holiday voucher was also given to the complainant.  It said that the opposing party's hotel in Thailand was free to stay and food at a reduced rate. The opposite party told the complainant that it is enough to book a room in the hotel 15 days before the departure of the tour.  Believing these words of the opposite party, the complainant booked the flight ticket online. When the complainant approached the opposite party for booking a room in the hotel, it came to know that the complainant should have booked the room three months before the tour.  The complainant tried to book a room in another hotel but that did not happen.  Then the complainant had to abandon the tour program itself. The complainant lost Rs 21,000 when the flight ticket bought for Rs 36,372 was cancelled.  The complainant also spent a lot of money to get the passport.  Apart from this, the complainant had to suffer a lot of mental anguish.  All these sufferings and losses are due to the misrepresentation of the complainant by the opposite party.  The opposite party requested in the complaint that steps should be taken to provide Rs.25000 as compensation to the complainant.

2).  Notice

          Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.

3) . Evidence

The complainant had produced 3 documents. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant.

Exbt.A1. Address of Thailand hotel

Exbt.A2.copy of the flight ticket

Exbt.A3. copy of the computed refund details

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

iii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

iv)      Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)       The issues mentioned above are considered together and are    answered as follows:

               As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.

            Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 indicates that for a consumer to bring an action, they must have availed themselves of the services for consideration. This means that there needs to be an exchange of value, such as payment, promise of payment, or a deferred payment system, for the services received. The consideration is a crucial element in establishing a contractual relationship between the consumer and the service provider. Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, specifies that services rendered without consideration, meaning services provided free of charge, are not included in the definition of "service." This implies that if services are provided without any form of consideration, they may not fall within the scope of the consumer protection Act, and therefore, complaints related to such services shall not be entertained by consumer commissions.

 The complainant had not produced any document to prove the transaction with the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the complainant.

For the sake of brevity issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are considered together.  As the Commission finds that the complainant is not a consumer, the Commission decides that none of the other points need be decided.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 3^rd day of June 2023.

       Sd/-

                                                                           D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Exbt.A1. Address of Thailand hotel

Exbt.A2.copy of the flight ticket

Exbt.A3. copy of the computed refund details