DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2023.
Filed on: 25/06/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO.160/2020
COMPLAINANT
Nalini V.G., Thuruthmalil House, Pulluvazhi P.O., Rayamangalam Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District.
(Rep. by Adv. V.G. Vinod, Perumbavoor
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Noushi Nasser, D/o Suraiya Bhai, Suraiya Tours & Travels, Managing Partner, 8/1385, TD Bent Road, Mattanchery, Ernakulam- 2.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant saw an advertisement in the Malayalam Manorama newspaper dated 29.06.2018 for a leisure trip to Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries on 24.08.2018, organized by Surya Tours and Travels. The complainant, along with two other families, paid Rs. 60,000 each to the opposite party on 09.07.2018, totalling Rs. 3,54,000. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,74,000 was transferred to the opposite party on 09/08/2018.
However, the opposite party did not fulfil their commitment and did not take the complainant and the families on the excursion on the agreed-upon date of 24.08.2018. The complainant's advocate sent a notice to the opposite party on 26/11/2019, which was returned unclaimed and returned to the senderon 06/12/2019.
The complaint alleges that the actions of the opposite party constitute unfair trade practices and lack of customer service. The complainant seeks a refund of Rs. 2,34,000, which includes the Rs. 1,74,000 paid at the Perumbavoor branch, along with 11% interest amounting to Rs. 50,945. Additionally, the complainant requests Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for mental anguish and humiliation caused to her and to her family in connection with the cancelled yatra. The complainant also seeks Rs. 25,000 for the cost of the proceedings, bringing the total amount claimed to Rs. 13,09,945.
2). Notice
The Commission sent notice to the opposite party, but the notices were not claimed by them, as evidenced by the proof of delivery from the Postal Department. As a result, the Commission considers this as "deemed service," and the opposite party is set as ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had produced 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-5.
Exhibit A-1. Copies of Payment Receipts and detailed plan or schedule of the trip issued by the opposite party.
Exhibit A-2-Statement of State Bank of India dated 31.08.2018 -
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the notice sent by the complainant's advocate to the opposite party, which was returned unclaimed.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the FIR on the complaint filed by the complainant before the Circle Inspector of Police in Perumbavoor.
Exhibit A-5. Advertisement in Malayalam Manorama newspaper dated 29.06.2018.
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:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 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. The complainant had produced a Copies of Payment Receipts and detailed plan or schedule of the trip issued by the opposite party. (Exhibit A-1). This document showing the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party for the trip. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
In the present case, the complainant alleges instances of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practices against the opposite party. The primary claim is for a refund of the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party for the leisure trip. Additionally, the complainant is seeking compensation for damages caused and the cost of the legal proceedings.
The complainant submitted that the complainant came across an enticing advertisement in the newspaper, organized by the opposite party, Surya Tours and Travels, offering a leisure trip to Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries on 24.08.2018. Trusting the promises made, the complainant, along with two other families, made substantial payments of Rs. 60,000 each, totaling Rs. 3,54,000 to the opposite party, and later transferred the remaining Rs. 1,74,000. However, to their dismay, the opposite party failed to fulfill their commitment and did not conduct the scheduled excursion. The complainant's advocate sent a notice on 26/11/2019, which remained unclaimed, prompting the complainant to allege unfair trade practices and a lack of customer service. The complainant seeks Rs. 2,34,000 as a refund, including Rs. 1,74,000 paid at the Perumbavoor branch, along with 11% interest totaling Rs. 50,945, and additionally claims Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for mental anguish and humiliation caused due to the canceled trip. Moreover, the complainant requests Rs. 25,000 for the cost of the proceedings, making the total claim amount Rs. 13,09,945.
The marked exhibits A-1 to A-5 serve as evidence supporting the complainant's claims against the opposite party. The payment receipts and detailed trip schedule (Exhibit A-1) demonstrate the financial commitment made by the complainant and other families for the leisure trip. The State Bank of India statement (Exhibit A-2) validates the transfer of Rs. 1,74,000 to the opposite party. Additionally, the returned notice (Exhibit A-3) confirms the opposite party's failure to respond to the complainant's grievance. The FIR copy (Exhibit A-4) substantiates the complainant's pursuit of legal action, and the newspaper advertisement (Exhibit A-5) attests to the offer made by the opposite party, forming the basis of the contractual agreement. These exhibits provide essential documentation to establish the validity of the complainant's claims and the context in which the alleged unfair trade practices and deficient services occurred.
Top of Form
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having ‘deemed service’ of the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite party, despite being served with the notice, did not challenge the allegations made by the complainant. This conscious failure to file their written version is considered an admission of the allegations against them. As per legal precedent, this stance of the opposite party is not credible, and we have no reason to disbelieve the complainant's claims in this matter.
The evidence presented by the complainant, including copies of payment receipts, the notice sent to the opposite party, bank statements, and the newspaper advertisement, has been duly marked as Exhibits A1 to A5.
Considering the evidence, the complainant's unchallenged contentions, and the serious deficiency in service caused by the opposite party, we find the issues in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties' actions amount to unfair trade practices and deficient services, deceiving and enriching themselves with the complainant's money and that of the public.
The complainant's case revolves around unfulfilled promises made by a tour agency, leading to frustration and disappointment. After being enticed by an advertisement, the complainant and two other families made substantial payments for a leisure trip, expecting an enjoyable experience. However, the opposite party's failure to deliver on their commitments caused emotional distress and financial burden. Seeking redress, the complainant rightfully pursued legal action to receive compensation for the damages incurred. This case highlights the importance of service providers fulfilling their promises and consumers' rights to seek justice in such situations.
In conclusion, the complaint is deemed maintainable, and the opposite party is found to have engaged in unfair trade practices and deficient services.
We find the issue Nos. (II) to (IV) are also found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. 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 party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund the complainant a total amount of Rs.2,34,000/-.
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the mental anguish and humiliation caused to the complainant and her family in connection with the cancelled trip.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs. 5, 000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party be liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of remittance of the amount till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of July, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1. Copies of Payment Receipts and detailed plan or schedule of the trip issued by the opposite party.
Exhibit A-2-Statement of State Bank of India dated 31.08.2018 -
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the notice sent by the complainant's advocate to the opposite party, which was returned unclaimed.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the FIR on the complaint filed by the complainant before the Circle Inspector of Police in Perumbavoor.
Exhibit A-5. Advertisement in Malayalam Manorama newspaper dated 29.06.2018.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
C.C. 160/2020
Order Dated: 31/07/2023
