Upon perusal of the records and documents along with exhibits it appears that there is no dispute in respect of the proposed tour programme and monetary transaction between the parties. As the receipt has been issued by the OP company to the complainant for providing service for the proposed tour and travel, the complainant is very much covered as a consumer under the scopes and meaning of Section 7(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The value of the complaint and the geographical jurisdiction of the same is also duly covered under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Section 34 (1) and 34 (2) of the said Act. Hence the complainant is undoubtedly a consumer as per definition of the Act. Regarding considering the pandemic situation of Covid-19 it is obvious that the proposed tour programme had to be either kept suspended or cancelled due to prevailing regulations issued by various authorities from time to time during the concerned period of Covid 19, but that does not give liberty to the OP company to not to refund the money that they have received as advance at the point of sale, from the complainant for which no service was rendered. Neither the OP company can forcefully impose acceptance of 15% cancellation charge on entire package amount upon the complainant without their consent. There is no ‘cancellation clause’ exhibited by OP that deals with cancellation terms for invoking by customer cumcomplainant. No administrative order we came across by which the said pandemic situation has been classified or declared either as an act of God or a force majeure condition. The OP as a service provider is completely liable for the risk involved in a business situation while discharging promised services to their consumers in full fairness and even if there was valid reasons for not to complete the promised services, they should have given full refund in lieu thereof. Otherwise this becomes an unfair trade practice promising to provide a service or a deceptive practices by failing to refund the consideration amount,that was never availed by the consumer. So the facts and circumstances and materials on record reveals it palpably clear that the OP company has adopted unfair trade practices towards the consumer by not refunding the consideration money that they received, although they could not render any service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of case SupreetBatra v. Union of India 2003 (1) SLT 730, held that "service provider cannot forfeit the fee or consideration for services, which are not provided”. This speaks volumes about the 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the opposite parties in causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gains to the opposite parties. In a landmark order, the CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) also granted full refund of tour cost to the consumers where tours were cancelled due to pandemic in the matter of complaint by Mumbai Grahak Panchayat against Mango Holidays Pvt. Ltd. and other private tour operators. In view of the above, the complainant is entitled to get relief. Hence, it is Ordered that :- That the complaint case no. CC/320/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is hereby directed to refund the full advanced amount of Rs. 20000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only to the complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-. The payment in terms of this order will be made within 60 days from date of this order failing which a simple interest @ 10% will get accrued till completion of full payment. If the Opposite party fails to comply with the above said direction within the period mentioned above, then the complainant is at liberty to put the entire order into execution as per due course of law. Let a plain copy of this Order be provided to both the parties free of cost as per CPR. Dictated and Corrected by [HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
| 
