Date of Filing:04/05/2016
Date of Order: 17/01/2018
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed in person U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for orders to direct the O.P to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and to pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the attendant circumstances of the case..
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant with an intention to undergo pilgrimage tour to Kailasa Manasa Sarovar which is organized by the O.P and hence the complainant approached the O.P on 25/8/2014 and paid advance amount of Rs.10,000/- for booking of the tour. It is stated that, as per the itinerary the OP failed to organize the tour and not refund the amount paid to the OP. Further stated that, the complainant got issued the legal notice and calling upon the OP to refund the amount with interest but the OP failed to comply the demand made in the notice. It is alleged that OP after collecting amount of Rs.10,000/- failed to conduct the tour as agreed and hence alleged that OP is deficient in its service. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice OP appeared entrance through its counsel and filed its version. It is contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in eye of law or on facts and it is deserved to be dismissed at the outset. Further contended that though complainant by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- booked for the tour trip but due to heavy earthquake in the Nepal and on account of natural calamities they did not conduct the tour. Further contended that OP has given opportunity to the complainant to pay additional sum of Rs.35,000/- in order to reach pilgrimage destination through helicopter but the complainant refused to pay the same. Further contended that though Ops ready to refund Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- towards interest but the complainant refused to receive the same. Hence contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and on other grounds finally prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) &(B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
7. On perusal of the rival pleadings of the both parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant in order to visit Kailasa Manasa Sarovar tour conducted by the OP and he paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP towards booking of the tour programme. It is also not in dispute the Ops did not organize the tour and asked the complainant to collect back the amount paid to them with interest.
8. The sole allegation of the complainant is that, the complainant with a holy intention booked the tour by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the OP, but the OP did not conduct the tour and hence the complainant suffer mental agony and which leads to filing of this complaint. Per contra OP contended that on 24th April 2015 massive earthquake in Nepal especially in Katmandu and the same is published in the Hindu Newspaper dated 25th April 2015 and hence they unable to proceed with the tour programmes by road. It is also contended that Ops asked the complainant to take service of helicopter by paying an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- but the complainant refused to do so.
9. In order to prove the case of the rival parties and both parties filed their respective affidavit evidence. On perusal of the affidavit evidence and both parties reiterated the same facts averred in their pleadings.
10. It is worth to note that the complainant did not say anything about the occurrence of massive earthquake in Nepal. On perusal of exhibit No.1 produced by the OP and related photographs and the pictures clearly depicts the perils occurred in Nepal and we have also got judicial notice of the same. If such being the case when a man become victim of the natural calamities like earthquake or any vis majare, an act of god, where the events over which no humans have control and so cannot be held responsible. It such being the case how can the complainant expecting organizing of tour by road and when the road destroyed due to earthquake. Hence, we are of the considered opinion when the circumstances go beyond the control of human act and hence we find no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. However on perusal of the order sheet as well as the version the O.P fairly admitted to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- towards interest and therefore the complainant is at liberty to collect the above said amounts. In the light to above discussions, we reached to conclusion that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence he is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly we answered the point (A) & (B) in the Negative.
POINT No. (C):
11. On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B) in the Negative, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint hereby is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 17th Day of January 2018)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
