State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arun Maheshwari vs Thomas Cook on 7 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 09 of 2014 Date of Institution : 08.01.2014 Date of Decision : 07.03.2014 1. Arun Maheshwari s/o Sh. Om Parkash. 2. Sharmila Maheshwari w/o Sh. Arun Maheshwari. 3. Miss Saloni Maheshwari minor d/o Shri Arun Maheshwari. 4. Master Vansh Maheshwari minor son of Shri Arun Maheshwari. Both minors through their father, next friend and guardian ad-liltem Sh. Arun Maheshwari. All residents of House No.295, Sector 7, Panchkula. Appellants/Complainants. Versus 1. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shri Madhavan Menon, Thomas Cook Building, Dr. DN Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. 2. Shri Madavan Menon, Managing Director, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Thomas Cook Building, Dr. DN Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. 3. Shri Rakshit Desai, Executive Director, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Thomas Cook Building, Dr. DN Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 4. Shri Vinayak Purohit, Executive Director-Finance, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Thomas Cook Building, Dr. DN Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. 5. Shri Jitender Chaudhary, General Manager-Leisure Travel, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., SCO 28/29/30, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160017. 6. Shri Vineet Bansal, Sales Executive, Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., SCO 28/29/30, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Arvind Sood, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 5 & 6.
Service of respondents No.3 and 4 already dispensed with vide order dated 9.1.2014.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed the complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants) and directed the Opposite Parties as under:-
11. In view of the above discussion, the opposite parties are found to be deficient to the extent of not providing complainants with the stay in the promised hotels. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainants. They are further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.
12. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants wished to visit Europe during the summer vacation of the year 2012 and for that purpose, they approached Opposite Parties No.5 and 6, namely, Sh. Jitender Chaudhary and Sh. Vineet Bansal, who disclosing themselves to be the employees and representatives of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, made the complainants to believe that they (Opposite Parties) were providing best facilities in Tours and Travel Business. It was stated that believing the version and assurance of Opposite Parties No.5 and 6, the complainants asked them for the best and comfortable European Package Tour, for about 3 weeks. It was further stated that upon this, Opposite Party No.6, visited the house of the complainants, on 16.5.2012, and also sent through email the details of proposed package tour i.e. Group Package Scandic East Europe 18 Nights/19 Days. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.6 personally handed over to the complainants Itinerary showing the details/names of the sights to be shown, to them, in various Cities/Countries, accommodations to be provided, meals, airfare, visa, medical insurance and other facilities etc. (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that cost of the package was Rs.2.32 Lacs per person or Rs.12,920/- per person, per day, for the aforesaid 18 Nights/19 Days Package. It was further stated that the complainants booked the Group Package Tour for themselves and paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the Opposite Parties, as advance on 16.5.2012.
3. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties assured that they would definitely get the VISA clearance well in advance. It was further stated that on 4.6.2012, the complainants paid the remaining amount of Rs.7,70,280/- as full and final amount. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, assured that the passports and documents would be delivered to the complainants, on 5.6.2012 and that the flight was scheduled for 6.6.2012 at 06.05 A.M. through Turkish Airways (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that on the evening of 5.6.2012, the Opposite Parties told the complainants that they could not get the passports from Embassy and assured them to get the same on 6.6.2012. It was further stated that when enquired, the Opposite Parties informed that the Passports were submitted to the Embassy on 28.5.2012. It was further stated that no satisfactory answer was given by the Opposite Parties, for submitting the Passports late. It was further stated that on becoming aware about the change of Scheduled Tour, complainant No.1 sent an email to the Opposite Parties on 7.6.2012, asking them to compensate the complainants for delayed days (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that finally on 8.6.2012 at 1.45 p.m., the Opposite Parties told the complainants that they got the Passports from the Embassy. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also informed that the flight bookings were non refundable, and for that reason, the complainants would have to bear flight re-booking and cancellation charges of Rs.47,776/- per head, and certain other charges to the tune of Rs.1,91,104/-, the details whereof were never given by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainants asked the Opposite Parties to tell the procedure for the cancellation of tour, the cancellation charges and the details of amount, which shall be refunded back to them. It was further stated that as huge amount of Rs.9.30 Lacs was struck with the Opposite Parties, finding no other alternative, the complainants paid the said demand of Rs.1,91,104/- to the Opposite Parties under compelling circumstances.
4. It was further stated that on 8.6.2012 by 8.30 p.m., the Opposite Parties arranged the air tickets, hotel addresses, insurance etc. for the complainants, who took their flight on 9.6.2012, to join the already started Group Package Tour and, as such, they lost four days tour due to the absolute lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that as per the Itineary, the complainants were to be picked up, at Airport, by the Opposite Parties but on 8.6.2012 night, when they reached Delhi Airport, the Opposite Parties, informed the complainants to go to Lunch venue at Finland at their own expenses, for which, they had to hire a taxi for Euro 50 (Rs.3,500/-) in Finland. It was further stated that during the whole tour of 18 days, the complainants were disappointed to see that the hotels booked, by the Opposite Parties were of poor quality. It was further stated that during the whole tour, the complainants did not get/stay even in the single hotel out of 16 hotels, mentioned in the Itinerary. It was further stated that mostly the hotels mentioned in the Itinerary were situated in the heart of the cities, but the complainants were lodged in suburbs. It was further stated that the complainants were charged Euro 128 (Rs.8,960/-) as tip to the Coach Driver, which was neither evident from the Itinerary, nor disclosed to the complainants at any early point of time. It was further stated that on 25.06.2012, the complainants returned to India and found that the hotels actually booked (as mentioned in the Tour Document, Annexure C-9) during 12 nights out of total 17 nights, were 52.5% of value when compared with the hotels promised in Itinerary.
5. It was further stated that the comparison chart (Annexure A) showed the difference in fare and location of the hotels agreed and actually provided by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that as per the comparison chart, there was a difference to the tune of 47.5%, in the rates of hotels agreed and actually provided by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that, in this manner, the Opposite Parties charged an extra amount to the tune of 47.5% of the total agreed Tour amount of Rs.9,30,280/- from the complainants. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also forced the complainants to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,91,104/- on account of alleged cancellation and re-booking charges of air tickets. It was further stated that the complainants served a legal notice dated 3.8.2012, upon the Opposite Parties, asking them to pay Rs.6,69,536/-, as actual loss suffered by them, on account of extra amount charged by the Opposite Parties but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite to refund Rs.7,23,346/- paid as an additional sum, alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of respective payments; pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 and 6, in their written version, took up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complainants had no privity of contract with Opposite Parties No.2 to 6 in their individual capacity and Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 had already left the employment of Opposite Party No.1; that the complaint was not maintainable, as the averments, made therein, do not substantiate any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which was required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force; that the complainants approached the Forum with unclean hands and deliberately did not disclose the complete and true facts. However, on merits, it was stated that complainant No.1 visited the Chandigarh branch office of the Opposite Parties, on 14.5.2012 and enquired about the various options for a trip to Europe. It was further stated that none of their employees ever made any claims, as alleged, in the complaint. It was further stated that it was within the knowledge and absolutely made clear to the complainants, that the answering Opposite Parties provided a vast range of travel related services. It was further stated that no assurances were given to the complainants, rather it was explained in great detail that the answering Opposite Parties offered several kinds of travel services, which included complete customized trips and pre-arranged group tours departing on fixed dates. It was further stated that it was made clear to the complainants that grant, rejection or delay in the issuance of visa was the Sovereign function of the concerned Consulate, which was beyond the control of the answering Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the ultimate responsibility of having the requisite Visa/s on the selected date of departure of a group tour, was of the passengers, failing which cancellation charges or charges for any alteration/rebooking etc. was to be applicable. It was further stated that the complainants opted for the tour marketed as Scandic East Europe as per their choice. It was further stated that the concerned employees of the answering Opposite Parties, suggested the complainants, to chose the group departing on 20th June, or later, since it was a peak season and there was unprecedented rush, which was taking longer than usual time, for processing the Visa, however, they were adamant to travel, on the above mentioned tour departing on 6th June. It was further stated that it was explained to the complainants that the answering Opposite Parties would not be responsible for any delay or consequent losses thereof. It was further stated that the complainants booked the tour after fully understanding and accepting all the governing terms and conditions and complainant No.1 signed the booking form dated 16.5.2012, on behalf of all the complainants (Annexure R-1).
7. It was further stated that the complainants only supplied the Passports on 17.5.2012 and assured to supply the requisite documents, required for submitting the Visa applications, shortly. It was further stated that the complainants did not supply the complete set of documents till 24.5.2012 and despite the fact that the answering Opposite Parties got very little time, to do the processing, the same were physically submitted before the Embassy of Norway on 28.5.2012. It was specifically denied that the Opposite Parties gave any assurance regarding the time taken by the concerned Consulate. However, on the other hand, the complainants were made fully aware that in case of any delay or the Visa not being issued, the complainants would be liable for all costs and consequences.
8. It was further stated that the complainants were fully aware that, in case, they opted for joining the tour at a later date, fresh air tickets would have to be issued and they would be liable to pay the cost of re-issuance and cancellation of earlier tickets. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Parties made last minute arrangements for the travel of the complainants, and made their travel possible. It was further stated that, by the time, the answering Opposite Parties could finally book the fresh air tickets, the cost of the same had increased, but since they (answering Opposite Parties) had communicated a particular amount to the complainants, it did not pass on the burden of the increased amount to the complainants. It was denied that the Opposite Parties resorted to any blackmail as alleged. It was further stated that the complainants opted to join the particular tour at a later date, as per their choice, and consent, and being fully aware of the additional cost and component of the tour that they would miss. It was further stated that the complainants themselves chose and opted to join the already departed tour on 9.6.2012. It was further stated that the complainants were specifically told that since the group would be proceeding with already arranged itinerary, they would have to join them at the specified place, and time, on their own as it would not be possible for the tour Manager to leave the entire group and receive the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants were deliberately and mischievously trying to misconstrue some conditions of the brochure. It was further stated that the complainants made wild and fabricated allegations, regarding the quality of hotels only with a malafide intent to coerce the answering Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainants were fully aware and it was specifically mentioned in the governing terms and conditions that sometimes due to the circumstances, the clients might have to be put up at Hotels, which were far from the centre of the City. It was further stated that the complainants were fully aware of the charges like tips and the fact that porters were not easily available in Europe and had to be paid separately by the passengers themselves. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 6, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
9. Notices were sent for the service of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, through registered AD letter on 21.1.2013. However, neither the same were received back undelivered nor any acknowledgements were received. As the period of more than 30 days, had lapsed, therefore, it was presumed by the District Forum, that Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 had been duly served. Since, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, on the date fixed, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, vide order dated 22.2.2013.
10. On 11.4.2013, Shri Rohit Kapoor, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 5 (who was also representing Opposite Parties No.1 & 6), suffered a statement that Opposite Parties No.2 & 5, did not want to file any separate reply and the reply filed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 6, be read as reply, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 5 also.
11. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
12. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of the instant order.
13. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.
14. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
15. The Counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that the respondents/Opposite Parties did not provide accommodation, in the listed hotels. It was also submitted that previous tickets, allegedly purchased and got cancelled, were not provided, which amounted to unfair trade practice. It was also submitted that the air tickets were valid up-to 21.07.2012. It was further submitted that the Embassy informed the appellants/complainants that already purchased ticket could be used. It was further submitted that all the documents were submitted on 17.05.2012 and the respondents/Opposite Parties did not correspond for requirement of any documents, from the appellants/complainants, it was only on 04.06.2012 that a message was received that the Visa approval was not received. It was further submitted that the documents, as detailed in Annexure C-18, were submitted. It was further submitted that the respondents/Opposite Parties, also issued receipt of original Passport and for other documents, no receipt was issued. It was further submitted that on 04.06.2012, the respondents/Opposite Parties, took the entire payment for air tickets. It was further submitted that the respondents/Opposite Parties, applied for Visa to the Embassy only on 28.05.2012, despite the fact that documents were submitted on 17.05.2012. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, be modified and the reliefs, claimed in the complaint, be granted to the appellants/complainants.
16. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties No, 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that the delay was caused by the complainants, as was evident from Para 7 of the complaint. It was further submitted that the documents were not submitted by the complainants, in time, and only the Passports were submitted on 17.05.2012. It was further submitted that as per Annexure R-1, the tickets were bought at package cost, as a group ticket, and Visa was an ancillary service. It was further stated that delay in getting Visa approval was only a bald assertion by the appellants/complainants. It was further submitted that the appellants/complainants did not submit the documents, in time, and only Passports were submitted, as was evident from Annexure C-19. It was further submitted that the original bank statement was mandatory. It was also submitted that there was no evidence that the delay took place due to deficiency on the part of respondents/Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that 26th and 27th were Saturday & Sunday and against the requirement of 15 calendar days, only 9 calendar days were available when all the documents were submitted, on late receipt of the same from the complainants.It was further submitted that there was no willful conduct of respondents/Opposite Parties leading to deficiency.
17. The factum of opting for the tour package marketed as Scandic East Europe for 18 Nights/19 Days and payment of Rs.1,60,000/- on 16.05.2012 vide Cheque No.847498, Rs.5,00,000/- on 4.6.2012 vide Cheque No.847499, Rs.2,70,280/- by cash on 04.06.2012 and Rs.1,91,104/- on 08.06.2012 vide cheque No.847500 by the appellants/complainants to Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. is admitted.
18. The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/complainants, submitted the requisite documents, required for obtaining the Visas, to the respondents/Opposite Parties, 15 calendar days, in advance of the date of commencement of the tour. According to Schengen Regulations (Visa Code), (Annexure C-23), .visa applications shall (as a main rule) be decided within 15 calendar days. The Embassy will take fifteen days to process the application from the date you submit the complete application and supporting documents to the Embassy or to the Consulate... This Visa Code clearly stipulated that the appellants/complainants were to submit the required documents, 15 calendar days in advance. It is also clearly evident from Annexure C-18, that the complainants were required to furnish the following documents/information to process the visa application:-
To process your visa, we would require the following documents:-
1.
Minimum 09 Months Valid Passport from the date of departure (Need to carry old passports if any).
2. 09 Passport PHOTOGRAPHS REQUIRED FOR ALL THE VISAS (03 photos per visa).
a) Colored.
b) Non-digital.
c) Mat-finish.
d) Latest (not old than 03 months).
e) White background w/o border.
f) 35 x 45 mm (normal close view; 80% of face).
3. Request letters drafted on the passengers letterheads (personal/official) to the respective Consulates.
4. Latest Visa application forms duly filled & signed by Passenger.
5. Photocopies of Last Three-Years Income Tax Returns (Personal).
6. Last Six-Months Original Bank Statement (Personal).
7. 02 Copies of PAN Card (Per Person).
8. Photocopies of Fixed Deposits, Shares Certificates, Life Insurance Policies if any.
9. Photocopies of Property Papers.
19. It is further evident from Annexure C-19, that the respondents/Opposite Parties, received the Passports of the appellants/complainants, on 17th May 2012. There is no evidence, whatsoever, with regard to the submission of other documents, which were mandatory for procuring the Visa on that date by the complainants. It was averred by the respondents/Opposite Parties that the remaining documents were submitted on 24.5.2012. 26th & 27th May, 2012 were holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday, and the Opposite Parties immediately applied for Visa to the Embassy on 28.05.2012. The respondents/Opposite Parties referred to the terms and conditions, as contained in Annexure R-1, relating to CANCELLATION DUE TO VISA REJECTION, which reads as under:-
All the clients travelling on a Thomas Cook Holiday tour must be in possession of a valid visa. However kindly note that it is entirely at the discretion of the concerned Consulate/Authorities to grant/reject visa even after submitting all relevant documents and the company will not be held responsible for the same. The company is not at all liable for such cases or has any influence on the consulate/embassys decision. The role of the company is only to provide necessary guidance to the client for the purpose of applying for VISA. The company will not be responsible for non-issuance of visa due to receipt of incomplete/delayed documents from the clients. It is a possibility that the consulate may ask the passengers to appear for a personal interview. This is at the sole discretion of the Consulate/ Authorities. If the required documents are not submitted by the client, the issuance of visa will further be delayed/ rejected, and the client will not hold Thomas Cook liable for the same. Client should adhere to all the norms and conditions laid by the consulate/embassy Upon rejection of visa, if the client wishes to reapply for the visa, he/she is liable to pay again the requisite fee to the consulate and he/she will not claim from Thomas Cook.
Clearly, in view of the terms and conditions, extracted above, no deficiency can be attributed to the respondents/Opposite Parties and, consequently, the total additional expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,91,104/-, incurred by the appellants/complainants, was not on account of any deficiency on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties.
20. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the tickets already purchased were valid for the rescheduled tour, which commenced w.e.f. 9.6.2012 instead of original schedule which was to commence on 6.6.2012. The appellants/complainants, have asserted that the tickets were valid up to 21.7.2012. On the other hand, the respondents/Opposite Parties, submitted that the tickets of the appellants/complainants, were part of a group package and for changing the tour w.e.f. 9.6.2012, additional expenditure of Rs.1,91,104/- was incurred. Since this happened due to the delayed submission of documents by the appellants/complainants, no deficiency was attributable to the respondents/Opposite Parties. The assertion of the appellants/complainants that they were informed by the Embassy that the already purchased tickets could be used, is not supported by any documentary evidence. Since the appellants/complainants failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence, that the original tickets were valid up to 21.7.2012, and for change of scheduled trip, no additional amount was payable, their plea, being devoid of substance, fails, and the same stands rejected.
21. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/complainants, were provided accommodation, in the listed hotels. Undoubtedly, under the heading Points to be noted (Annexure C-2), at page 36 of the District Forum file, it was mentioned as under:-
Due to major international events and trade fairs throughout Europe such as the Olympics games, Air Show, World Athletic Meet, the Motor Show, Ice Skating Championships etc., the hotels may be blocked out more than two years in advance. In view of this you, may have to stay in hotels further away from the cities and the itineraries may have to be altered/amended. We also reserve the right to substitute a hotel of similar class if it is deemed advisable or necessary.
The case of the respondents/Opposite Parties, was that the appellants/complainants, were fully aware that the hotels could be substituted with similar hotels and the clients may have to be put up at hotels, which were far from the centre of the city. It was not the case of the Opposite Parties, that they changed the hotels due to major international events, and trade fairs, throughout Europe, as mentioned in the afore-extracted condition. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties failed to furnish satisfactory and plausible reasons, as to why the appellants/complainants, were not provided stay in one of the 16 hotels, mentioned in the Itinerary. The respondents/Opposite Parties, also failed to prove that the hotels provided to the appellants/complainants, were of the equivalent class, as promised. To this extent, the respondents/Opposite Parties, were very much deficient, in rendering service, to the appellants/Opposite Parties.
22. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
23. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
24. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
25. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
26. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
March 07, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.9 of 2014) Argued by: Sh. Arvind Sood, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 5 & 6.
Service of respondents No.3 and 4 already dispensed with vide order dated 9.1.2014.
Dated the 7th day of March, 2014 ORDER Alongwith the appeal, an application, for placing on record, copy of Intimation-cum-Certificate sent by Norweigian Embassy, copy of bulk reply mails of Turkish Airlines for the period from 6.6.2012 to 21.7.2012 and copies of original tickets, as Annexures A-1 to A-6, was moved by the applicants/appellants/complainants, on the ground, that the same are essential for the just decision of appeal.
2. Heard.
3. It may be stated here, that the documents, sought to be placed, on record, by way of additional evidence, were very much, in possession and knowledge of the applicants/appellants/complainants, when they were leading evidence, in the District Forum. No plausible reason has been assigned, as to what prevented the applicants/ appellants/complainants, from producing these documents, on record, in the District Forum. In case, at this stage, the application for placing, on record, copy of the Intimation-cum-Certificate sent by Norweigian Embassy, copy of the bulk reply mails of Turkish Airlines for the period from 6.6.2012 to 21.7.2012, and copies of original tickets, as Annexures A-1 to A-6, by way of additional evidence, is allowed, that will delay the disposal of appeal, thereby defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 13 (3A), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulating the specific time, for the disposal of Consumer Disputes. Thus, there is no justification, whatsoever, to allow the application, for placing on record, and admitting into additional evidence, the aforesaid documents. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Arguments, in the main appeal, already heard.
5. Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been upheld.
6. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Ad