State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharath International Travels vs Smt.B.C.Ratna on 13 July, 2022
Daily Order BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022 PRESENT SRI. RAVI SHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI : MEMBER Appeal Nos. 1590 to 1602/2017 Bharat International Travels No.576, Dewans Road, Opp. M.G. Road, Lakshmipuram, Mysore-570004 Rep. by its Director Mr.Manish Salian Appellant is common in all the appeals. (By M/s. Lexplexus) V/s ....Appellant Appeal No. 1590/2017 H.S. Ramachandra Aged about 66 years, S/o Late H.N. Satyanarayana, No.453, 4th Cross, J Block, Kanakadasanagar, Dattagalli 3rd phase, Mysore-570023 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1591/2017 Smt. B.C. Ratna W/o B.T. Ratna Aged about 50 years, R/a No.1033, B.G.Layout, Mandya-571401 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1592/2017 Smt. K.G. Uma Naganna W/o M.L.Naganna, Aged about 63 years, Sai Madhur Gokul Apartments, G-14, Dr.Vishnuvardhan Road, Chikalasandra, Bengaluru-560061 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1593/2017 Smt. Lakshmi Aged about 25 years, W/o Krithik.C.S., R/a No.321, 3A Cross Road, 2nd Block, 3rd Phase, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru-560079 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1594/2017 J.H. Vedavalli W/o. Srinivas Motayya, Aged about 59 years, R/a No.2050, 2nd Cross, Subhashnagar, Mandya .....Respondent Appeal No. 1595/2017 Krithik C.S. Aged about 31 years, R/a No.321, 3A Cross Road, 2nd Block, 3rd Phase, Basaveswaranagar, Bengaluru-560079 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1596/2017 Vikas R. S/o H.S.Ramachandra, Aged about 32 years, R/a No.4452, 4th cross J block, Kanakadasnagar, Dattagali 3rd Phase, Mysore .....Respondent Appeal No. 1597/2017 Vimala B.K. W/o Channappa, Aged 61 years, R/a No.568, 12th Cross, V.V.Nagar, Mandya-571401 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1598/2017 Smt.Vinodha R. W/o H.S.Ramachandra Aged about 58 years,
R/a No.4452, 4th Cross, J block, Kankadasnagar, Dattagalli 3rd phase, Mysore .....Respondent Appeal No. 1599/2017 Lakshmi Seetharam W/o. Ramu Seetharam, Aged about 61 years, R/a Apt. No.304, Damden Apartment, No.2661, 3rd Main Road, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore-570017 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1600/2017 Smt. H.S. Bharathi W/o J. Nagraj, Aged about 61 years, R/a No.10, 3rd Cross Road, Madeshwara Layout, Vijaynagar 2nd Phase, Mysore-570017 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1601/2017 Smt. Divya Diwakar W/o K.L. Diwakar, Aged about 34 years, R/a No.A-3, 317, Gokulam Apartments, 8th Main Road, Vasanthpura, Bengaluru-560061 .....Respondent Appeal No. 1602/2017 Smt. Purvi Adavi W/o Vikas R. Aged about 28 years, R/a No.4452, 4th Cross, J block, Kanakadasanagar, Dattagali 3rd phase, Mysore-570023 .....Respondent O R D E R BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER The OP preferred these appeals against the common order passed in C.C.Nos. 1421/2016 to 1433/2016 on the file District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore.
The complainants stated that the OP being tour operator conducted a Europe tour in the month of May 2016 for 11 days. Each of respondents/complainants had paid Rs.1,65,750/- to the appellant and booked their seats. The tour was conducted from 04.05.2016 to 15.05.2016. Further stated that in tour period the appellant was not rendered proper service to the complainants and also all the places mentioned in the tour package was not shown to the complainants. Hence, the complainants filed complaints seeking for refund of 30% of tour cost from the date of alleged deficiency in service while conducting the tour.
After service of notice the OP appeared through advocate and filed his version and contended that the complainants have participated in entire tour without any objections as to quality of service during the tour and now filed the said complaints seeking 30% of tour cost after having received compensation in full and final settlement from OP. Further contended that OP invited the complainants for meeting at their office to amicably resolve all the grievances raised by complainants and after mutual discussion the OP has refunded a sum of Rs.5,533/- to the complainants as full and final settlement. The complainants had signed the discharge vouchers in acceptance of said money and proceeded to file these complaints before District Commission. Hence, prays for dismissal of complaints.
Heard from appellant. Respondents are absent inspite of sufficient opportunity has been granted and not argued the matter.
Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record. We noticed that it is an admitted fact that the appellant had organized Europe tour in May 2016 and respondents have paid Rs.1,65,750/- each for the tour package. The allegations of the respondents was that in the tour the appellant has not rendered quality service and also not shown all the places mentioned in the tour package. However, appellant denied the allegations of the respondents. The appellant further contended that the complainants have participated in entire tour without any objections as quality service rendered during tour and now filed the said complaints seeking 30% of tour cost after having received compensation in full and final settlement from OP. It is evident that the appellant has produced discharge voucher which reflects that the respondents have received a sum of Rs.5,533/- towards compensation in full and final settlement of all claims which the respondents have accepted the same without any protest. Since, respondents have signed discharge vouchers by receiving amount unconditionally may not be treated as full and final, if the respondents can satisfy the court that it was obtained through undue influence, fraud, mis-representation then the Commission would be justified in granting appropriate relief under such circumstances. In present case the respondents have not raised any such allegations that the appellant has taken signs on the discharge vouchers by fraud, mis-representation and undue influence. Once the respondents signed on discharge voucher unconditionally and encashed the cheques delivered by appellant will automatically amounts to satisfaction in full and final settlement of claims. If the respondents have accepted the cheques and encashed it respondent cease to be a 'consumer' as per Consumer Protection Act. The relationship of 'consumer' and 'service provider' between them came to an end at that moment. If the respondents have no satisfaction for that amount at that time only they have power to refuse or accept the offer provided by the appellant. Moreover, the respondents have not present before this Commission, since, from long time. Hence, it seems that respondents have satisfied for that amount paid by the appellant. Further perused the letter produced by appellant. It is mentioned that "we are giving you a full refund for tours of Amsterdam and Venice. Also please note that we have also provided you complementary LIDO show (€ 90 value). With this we hope this issue is closed and this is the final settlement" and cheque number and amount of INR also mentioned and same was signed by the respondents. However, without considering these, District Commission passed an order which is not just and proper. Hence, considering the facts, discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is not just and proper. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Consequently, complaints are dismissed.
Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission payable to the appellant/ OP.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CV*