Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/116/2022

A M TRAVELS - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYANT AHUJA - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ VASHISHTHA

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/116/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	10/08/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	09/03/2023

 

 

 

 

 

M/s A.M. Travels, having its office at SCO 28-29-30, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through Sandeep Malhotra son of Late Sh. S.P. Malhotra, Proprietor.

 

…… Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

1]    Jayant Ahuja son of Sh.Sudhir Chander Ahuja, Resident of House No. 1319, Sector 28, Chandigarh.

 

2]    Nitin Kumar Bhola son of Late Mohan Lal Bhola, Resident of House No. 968, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Respondents ex-parte vide order dated 02.02.2023.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

         This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/369/2018, in the following terms:-

 

10.  In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under:-

 

1. to refund the amount of ₹2,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 13.1.2018 till realization.

 

2. to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;

 

3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

 

11.  This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

 

 

2.     Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Respondents/ Complainants that they approached the Appellant/OP for booking tour package to Dubai from 21.12.2017 to 25.12.2017 of 7 adults and 2 children. The Respondent/complainants vide email dated 26.10.2017 asked the Appellant/OP to make necessary bookings, but, the Appellant/OP failed to do the same and complete visa requirements. Thereafter, the Appellant/OP vide email proposed the Respondents/complainants to change their trip dates and the Respondents/ complainants confirmed the same vide communication dated 23.12.2017.  However, the Appellant/OP again failed to finish visa formalities, hotel bookings or the air ticket.  The Respondents/complainants with a view to give more time to the Appellant/OP, agreed to book their trip from 24.01.2018 to 28.01.2018.  Subsequently, Appellant/OP vide email dated 10.01.2018 sent hotel bookings in Dubai which were false/fake. Further, the Appellant/OP vide email dated 11.01.2018 informed the Respondents/ complainants that visa of all the travellers was expected by 13.01.2018, failing which the amount would be refunded.  However, the Appellant/OP failed to do so and in response to the discussions held on 15.01.2018 Appellant/OP undertook to refund the whole amount of ₹3,85,980/-. Despite the understanding between both the parties, Appellant/OP could get the visa of Respondent/ complainant No.1 only on 15.01.2018. The Appellant/ OP vide email dated 20.01.2018 informed that the refund was under process, but nothing was received by the Respondents/complainants. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant/OP.

 

3.     Appellant/OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its reply denying that it failed to make necessary bookings and complete the visa requirements. It was pleaded, processing of visa application and its subsequent issue lies with the competent authorities which were beyond the control of Appellant/OP. It was also denied that Appellant/ OP proposed to change the trip dates and rather the Respondents/complainants themselves approached the Appellant/OP for change of date as per their convenience. It was submitted that despite the fact that January is peak month for travel to Dubai, Appellant/OP tried its level best and visa of Mr.Jayant Ahuja was issued on 15.01.2018 and three other visas were also issued between 15.01.2018 and 28.02.2018. It was also denied that the Respondents/complainants paid the amount of ₹3,85,980/- and rather they paid ₹2,50,000/- only. On these ground, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.

 

4.     On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the Respondents/ Complainants, as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

5.     Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/OP.

 

6.     In the present appeal, pursuant to notice, Respondents/ Complainants, initially, appeared through Sh. Jagtej Singh Kang, Advocate through video conferencing, but subsequently they absented, and, therefore, vide order dated 02.02.2023, they Respondents/ Complainants were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

 

7.     We have heard the Learned Counsel  for the Appellant/OP and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.     The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.     After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.     Learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/OP, in as much as, it was the Respondents/complainants, who kept on modifying their programme/ trip dates; visa of Mr. Jayant Ahuja (complainant No.1) was issued on 15.01.2018 and that of three others were issued between 15.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 and it was the Respondents/Complainants who refused to make the payment for the additionally added passenger Ms.Mansi Ahuja, which led to the cancellation of all the bookings and even the Appellant/OP was forced to face with the cancellation charges. However, we do not find any force in the arguments raised, as the Appellant/Opposite Party has miserably failed to support the same with some cogent, convincing & reliable documentary evidence.  

 

11.     Learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP has further urged that there remained a novation of contract between the parties as the tour plan of the Complainants was changed and when the contract is to be executed on the new terms & conditions, the parties could not have been prosecuted for the terms of the older contract. However, we are also not impressed with the same, for the reasons hereinafter appearing.

 

        Admittedly, the Respondents/complainants paid an amount of ₹2,50,000/- to the Appellant/OP for availing its services for trip to Dubai. It has come on record that vide Annexure C-4, which is an e-mail dated 11.01.2018 sent by the Appellant/ Opposite Party, the Appellant/OP informed the Complainants that in case the Appellant/OP were unable to hand over the all documents by 13th of Jan., then it would give them full refund. This goes a long way to prove that the Appellant/OP assured the Complainants to refund the amount in case it was unable to hand over all the documents alongwith visas by 13.01.2018, however, the Appellant/OP failed to fulfill the said commitment. In this backdrop, the Ld. Lower Commission while holding Appellant/OP deficient in rendering services, has rightly observed in para 9 of the order that it was the Appellant/OP only which promised the Complainant vide Annexure C-4 to refund the entire amount if it failed to hand over all the documents, including visa, with regard to the scheduled Dubai trip by 13.01.2018 and since the Appellant/OP failed to do so, it is liable to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation.

 

12.     All this leads to an irresistible conclusion that that the Appellant/OP was surely and definitely guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, in as much as, in the first instance, it failed to render proper services to the Complainants, despite having charged the amount for the same in advance and thereafter, failed to honour its own commitment made to the Complainants vide Annexure C-4. Thus, the plea raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP that there remained a novation of contract between the parties, is not available to the Appellant/OP in the facts & circumstances of the case and the same is, thus, declined. No case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded ibid by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

13.     It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.     In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

09^th Mar.,2023

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”