Order No. 1 Cont.......                   Dated- 01.11.2022

The Misc. Application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that due to some misunderstanding of the advocate at the time of institution of the case it is mentioned in the complaint that respondent no. 3 refunded Rs. 13, 880/- only after deduction of Rs.5,000/- only but the respondent no. 3 had not refunded any amount till date as such necessary amendment in the complaint is required.

It transpires from the complaint petition of CC/309/2021 that the complainant stated in her complaint that on cancellation of five round trip tickets, the opposite party refunded Rs. 13,880/- only deducting Rs..5000/- only to the complainant. The prayer of the complainant was to direct the opposite parties to refund the deducted amount of Rs.5,000/- only, Rs. 1,00,000/- only for mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- only as litigation cost. Now the complainant has come up with a new story that the opposite party has not refunded the entire cancellation amount to her.

It further appears from the record that a pre counselling session was held by the commission to resolve the dispute between the complainant and opposite party no. 3. During pre counselling,  the opposite party no. 3 admitted that he refunded Rs.13,880/- only to the complainant after deducting Rs.5,000/- and he is ready to pay interest @ 5 % p. a. for the said amount and Rs.2,500/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost. The husband of the complainant refused to accept the proposal of the opposite party no. 3. So, the pre counselling to resolve the dispute between the parties failed.

In course of hearing of Misc. Application, Ld. Advocate for the complainant admitted that the complainant is an educated working lady.

From the discussion made above and material on record I find the proposed amendment though will not change the nature and character of the case but certainly after thought.

Moreover, the complainant being an educated working lady has submitted the complaint on affidavit at the time of institution of the case admitting that she has received Rs.13,800/- only from the opposite parties.

Considering the above discussion, the Misc. Application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC cannot be allowed and liable to be rejected as after thought.

Therefore, the Misc. Application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC is rejected without cost.

Thus the Misc. Application is disposed of.