Per Hon’ble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18/05/2007 passed by District Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint no.112/2005, Mr.Vivan Rodrigues and another v/s. Orbit Tours & Trade Fairs.
2. None is present for the appellant. Heard Mr.A.V. Patwardhan-Advocate for the respondents .
3. Admitted facts are that both the complainants accepted the offer of the appellant/original opponent to participate in Orbit tour programme organized by the appellant/opponent in China for 25 days. Agreed consideration of `77,700/- (US $ 1468) is/was paid at that time by both the complainants to participate in the tour which was branded as “Canton Fair 2005” where about 7500 stalls of different displays were displayed with modern technology. The complainants were interested to know the latest technique of furniture and interior and, therefore, they have participated in the said tour programme. Both the parties relied on the brochure of the said tour programme printed and published by the appellant/ opponent as an organizer received from the original event manager in China namely, Canton Fair organizers. The said brochure was with certain terms and conditions. The complainants were not satisfied with the visit as the required display of furniture and interior was already concluded prior to the visit of the complainants to the said fare. Therefore they were disappointed and also the representatives of the appellant/opponent in China were unprofessional and could not organize the visit as expected by the complainants.
4. It is admitted that the class accommodation as promised was not provided and also the air condition at the lodging arrangement went out of order for more than 24 hours causing great inconvenience and uncomfort to the complainants. On this background and dissatisfied with the tour, the complainants on return to India sent notice for refund of the amount paid on account of said tour trade fare. The opponent/appellant refused to entertain the claim and, therefore, consumer complaint filed by the complainants was decided by the District Forum holding deficiency of service against the appellant/opponent with a direction to pay an amount of `77,700/- (US $ 1468) together with `2000/- as costs of the litigation. Aggrieved with the impugned order, present appeal has been filed by the appellant/original opponent.
5. During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the original complainant no.1 (respondent no.1 in this appeal) expired and no legal heirs were brought on the record. Therefore, this Commission has passed an order during the course of hearing on 13/02/2013 stating that the present appeal stands abated as against respondent no.1. Ld.Advocate for the respondent submitted that the impugned order was passed by the District Forum after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case made out before the District Forum by the complainants and the complaint was partly allowed. Appellant/opponent or their advocate preferred to remain absent. This matter pertains to year 2007. Therefore, the matter was proceeded for hearing and disposal in absence of the appellant/opponent.
6. Appellant/opponent relied on the contents of the brochure. Said terms and conditions of booking tour were supplied to the complainants. However, there is no documentary evidence to show that the appellant/opponent conducted the tour as promised and agreed upon by the complainants to undertake such tour, since both the complainants participated in the tour to learn some new technique in their profession/avocation by visiting the trade fare organized by the appellant.
7. District Forum has rightly observed that it is humanly impossible to take round in or about 7500 stalls in the said fare and there is no conclusive proof to show that the complainants were taken to the stalls of their choice for which they have participated namely, furniture, fixture and interior designs, which were not in existence at the time of visit of the complainant. The grievance made out by the complainants appears to be very genuine as the purpose for which the tour was undertaken was not fulfilled. There is no satisfactory explanation on record on behalf of the appellant/opponent to counter the claim of the complainants. District Forum has appreciated the facts and circumstances and evidence led down by both the parties and arrived at a correct conclusion to uphold the contention of the complainants. Therefore, impugned order does not require any interference and we cannot take a different view than what has been taken by the District Forum. In the circumstances, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 27th February, 2013.
