DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of December 2022
Filed on: 26.02.2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 122 /2022
COMPLAINANT
Sheela Joseph "OASIS", Lovedale Colony, Arakinar P.O, Kozhikode-673028
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Gopinath Balaji Managing Director, Carnelian Tour Me Tour International Private Ltd. C/o Soligent Innovative Projects Private Ltd.No. 30/1191 E, City Center Vyttila, Kochi-682019
2. Leena Ramakrishnan,Director Carnelian Tours Me tour International Private Ltd.C/o Soligent Innovative Projects Private Ltd No.30/1191 E, City Center, Vyttila, Kochi-682019.
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 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The 1st opposite party is the Managing Director and the 2nd opposite party is the Director of M/s.Carnelian Tour Me tour International Private Limited. They used to arrange tickets for group package tours. Seeing the advertisements in the newspapers regarding "Samudram Tour Package" organized by the Lakshadweep Tourism Department the complainant and others planned a leisure trip to Lakshadweep. The complainant being the coordinator of Scout and Guide Teachers Association made booking for herself and for her 14 colleagues by paying Rs. 35,500/- each for the trip. The complainant paid the charges of three passengers by cash and the others credited it to the account of the opposite parties maintained in Federal Bank, Vyttila Branch bearing Account No. 14100200012971. The trip was fixed on 22 April 2020. The tour operator offered free journey for one person other than the 15 passengers. The names of the passengers who paid the consideration are Mercy Thomas, Rosakutty T S, Vimala P, Geetha K C, Pradseepkumar K P, Geetha Eroth, Leelamma T T, Parvathy D, Jalaja Kumari, Shirly Kurian, Sheela Joseph, Rajitha, Salomi Augustine, Ajayakumar C H, and Sakunthala.
While so, unfortunately, due to the Covid 19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown the trip was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite parties for future plans and she was informed that the trip can be fulfilled on resumption of the Samudra Tour Package by the Lakshadweep Tourism Department. Due to the non-getting of any positive signals regarding the resumption of the trip even after the elapse of several months the complainant contacted the opposite parties and requested for refund of amount paid for the ticket collected by the opposite parties. But no positive reply was received from them and on the other hand, they closed down their office. The letter sent to them was returned as unserved. No reply was received for the email sent to the 1st opposite party. Subsequently, a complaint was submitted before Maradu Police station seeking their intervention for getting back the money collected by the opposite parties. The Maradu Police informed that the representative of the opposite parties Mr.Ajayakumar had agreed to refund the money in two installments of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the balance amount after 6 months. Believing the words of the police the complainant contacted Mr. Ajayakumar over the phone but instead of refunding the money, Mr. Ajaykumar shouted at the complainant saying that he is not willing to pay the money. Thereafter the complainant approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi City but that too was in vain. The complainant and her colleagues are entitled to get refund of the money paid by them towards the ticket fare since the trip has not been fulfilled. The reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to refund the amount collected by them towards ticket fare amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant and her 14 colleagues who had paid the ticket charges to the opposite parties are of the same interest and hence the complaint is filing this complaint on behalf of the other 14 consumers by invoking section 35(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant had approached the commission seeking for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 5,32,500/- retained by the opposite parties together with interest @ 12% from 04.03.2021 till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the hardships and mental agony suffered by them due to the unfair trade practice along with cost of the proceedings.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the first and second opposite parties which were returned as intimation given by the postal authorities. Hence the notices are considered as deemed to be served and the opposite parties did not file their versions. Hence The first and second opposite parties are set ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 6 documents which are marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-6.
Exhibit A-1: Copies of the receipt Vouchers (3 Nos.) dated 2.3.2020 issued by the opposite parties.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the booking details of the Samudram Tour Package.
Exhibit A-3: Copy of the returned letter sent to the opposite parties.
Exhibit A-4: Copy of the complaint dated given to Maradu Police Station.
Exhibit A-5: Copy of the complaint dated 14.12.2021 given to Commissioner of Police.
Exhibit A-6: Copy of the bank documents showing the remittance of the charges for the trip.
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 party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complaint is regarding the reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to refund the consideration paid for the cancelled tour due to covid restrictions.
The Complainants fall under the ambit of the definition of a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act,2019. As per Section 2 (7) a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. In the present case in hand, the receipt vouchers and Exhibit A-6 are the bank documents showing the remittance of the charges for the trip. (Exhibits-A-1 and A -6) Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 2019. (Point No.i) goes against the opposite parties.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant and the 14 other consumers are having the same interest, and the complainant filed this complaint by seeking permission from this commission to do so. The opposite parties were set ex-parte. The opposite parties collected Rs. 35500/- each from 15 scouts and guide teachers’ who are the association members for the leisure trip to Lakshadweep. Though it was assured to fulfill the trip plan after the removal of covid restrictions by the Lakshadweep Tourism Department nothing was done by the opposite parties to resume the trip. The copies of warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party (Exhibit A-2). Hence the complaint and others demanded a refund of the money collected from them (Exhibit A3). Since no positive reply was received from the opposite parties the complainant and her team approached Maradu Police station (Exhibit A4). Though the representative of the opposite parties had assured them the refund of the amount nothing was done by them. Hence the complaint was filed before the Asst. Commissioner of Police. (Exhibit A-5). But in vain
It is pertinent to note that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties but they did not turned up or file their version. Hence the opposite parties were set ex-prate. The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 6 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-6. All in support of their case. But the opposite parties did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex- prate order passed against them.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The Opposite Parties have inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Parties in providing the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
The complainant and her 14 colleagues who had paid the ticket charges to the opposite parties are of the same interest and hence the complaint is filing this complaint on behalf of the other 14 consumers by invoking section 35(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate loss sustained to the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
The Opposite Parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5,32,500/- (ie., 35,500 x15) (Rupees Five lakh Thirty Two thousand and five hundred only) being the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.
The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainants an amount of Rs.75,000/- (5000 x15) as compensation to the complainants ie., Rs.5000/- per head for 15 complainants.
The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the open Commission this the 28th day of December, 2022.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
egistrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: Copies of the receipt Vouchers (3 Nos.) dated 2.3.2020 issued by the opposite parties.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the booking details of the Samudram Tour Package.
Exhibit A-3: Copy of the returned letter sent to the opposite parties.
Exhibit A-4: Copy of the complaint dated given to Maradu Police Station.
Exhibit A-5: Copy of the complaint dated 14.12.2021 given to Commissioner of Police.
Exhibit A-6: Copy of the bank documents showing the remittance of the charges for the trip.
Opposite parties Evidence :: Nil
C.C.No.122/2022
Order dated 28.12.2022
