State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Md. Asif vs Syed Hassan on 8 April, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1144/2017 ( Date of Filing : 31 Oct 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/08/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/1/2016 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Md. Asif S.M. Umer & Bros., 18, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700 016. 2. S.M. Jamil S.M. Umer & Bros., 18, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700 016. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Syed Hassan S/o Lt. Abdul Karim, 2/1, Kimber Street, P.S. - Beniapukur, Kolkata - 700 017. 2. Mrs. Abrar Hassan W/o Syed Hassan, S/o Lt. Abdul Karim, 2/1, Kimber Street, P.S. - Beniapukur, Kolkata - 700 017. 3. Md. Usuf Islahi S/o Lt. A. Haque, 3/1, Kimber Street, P.S. - Beniapukur, Kolkata - 700 017. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Dipa Sen ( Maity ) MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent: M. Mohiuddin, Advocate Dated : 08 Apr 2019 Final Order / Judgement PER :HON'BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the instance of Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgment/final order being Order No.09 dated 24.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (in short, 'Ld. District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.1/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the respondents u/s 12 of the Act on contest with the direction upon the OPs/appellants to pay a sum of Rs.23,000/- only to the complainants/respondents along with compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, in default, the amount shall carry interest @10% p.a. till its realisation.
The respondents herein being complainants lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that in order to avail a trip of pilgrimage to Mecca & Medina, they came in contact with Ms. Umer Brothers for a tour from 17.05.2015 to 31.05.2015 at a cost of Rs.62,000/- per person. The complainants have stated that on 18.02.2015 they have paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- and further on 14.03.2015 they have paid the balance amount of Rs.96,000/- aggregating Rs.1,86,000/- for three persons for such tour. However, on 16.05.2015 when the complainants went to the office of travelling agency to collect the travelling documents etc., they were surprised to know that OPs have called off the tour. The OPs handed over the travelling documents including air tickets, hotel and transport, invoice and paid the complainants a sum of Rs.13,000/- only in total for meals, sight scene and laundry etc. The complainants have alleged that due to calling of the tour programme, they have suffered a lot although they undertook the journey of their own. Accordingly, the complainants served a notice upon the OPs claiming a sum of Rs.3,23,000/- towards expenses, cost of notice and damages and for harassment and mental agony etc. However, the OPs did not pay any heed to the same. Hence, the respondents approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) a direction to make payment of Rs.18,050/- towards expenses incurred in the tour, Rs.5000/- cost of notice total Rs.23,000/-; (b) payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to them as compensation for harassment and mental agony; (c) cost of the litigation etc. The appellants being OPs by filing a written version have stated that they have arranged all provisions of the tour including arrangement of Visa, booking of flights, and hotel arrangement at Mecca & Medina etc. The OPs have stated that the complainants insisted them to allow to visit Mecca & Medina as per arranged tour programme and they will co-operate for any shortcoming or difficulty. So the OPs refunded Rs.13,000/- for availing food, Zazzam, laundry for 12 days for 3 persons. The OPs have also stated that they have arranged transport by bus but the complainants demanded separate vehicle for journey. They have also arranged 3 Star Hotel at Mecca & Medina for the complainants and as such allegation for the complainants regarding the hotel or accommodation is baseless one. The OPs have also stated that on the request of complainants they handed over all the papers and documents to the complainants as required for the said tour and the complainants availed the said tour in terms of arrangement made by the OPs and as such question of deficiency in services on the part of them does not arise.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs, as indicated above. To assail the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that on account of sudden accident of mother of the appellants and also due to non-availability of sufficient participants for the tour, the appellants requested the respondents to cancel the tour and to take back the deposited amount but the respondents insisted for arrangement of tour and also assured that they would render all co-operation with the appellants so that the tour may be completed. He has further submitted that the appellants' travel agency has made arrangement for Visa, booking of flights, hotel arrangement and transport at Mecca & Medina and also paid Rs.13,000/- to the complainants for availing food, Zazzam, laundry charge etc. and as such the Ld. District Forum should not have allowed the complaint when there was no deficiency in services on the part of appellant travel agency.
Per contra, Mr. Syed Hassan (an Advocate in profession), who appeared in person has contended that the respondent travel agency collected the entire amount of the tour within 14.03.2015 i.e. prior two months of the tour and as such when just on the previous date to the date of journey the appellant travel agency cancelled the tour, it amounts not only deficiency in services but also unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants. He has also drawn our attention to the contents of written version as well as the contents of memorandum of appeal and submitted that the appellant travel agency had taken different stand in cancelling the tour and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.
We have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record.
Undisputedly, in order to avail a tour at Mecca & Medina from 17.05.2015 to 31.05.2015 the respondents booked three seats through the respondent travel agency on 18.02.2015. It also remains undisputed that on 18.02.2015 the respondents paid Rs.90,000/- and further on 14.03.2015 they have paid another sum of Rs.96,000/- aggregating Rs.1,86,000/-. It may be pertinent to recoerd here that the offer of the said package tour by the appellants included Visa, Air fare, transportation, food and lodging, sight scene, laundry and five litres of holy water for a cost of Rs.62,000/- only per person. The respondents were three in numbers intended to participate in the tour for which they have paid the entire amount of Rs.1,86,000/-. It also remains undisputed that on 16.05.2015 just previous date of commencing of the tour, the appellants travel agency cancelled the said tour. This kind of cancellation is certainly a deficiency on the part of OPs because the respondents themselves were making ready to proceed towards Mecca & Medina for their holly pilgrimage group tour.
In their written version, the appellants have stated that due to accident of mother of the OPs and also due to non-availability of tour participants they have compelled to cancelled the tour. On the contrary, in the memorandum of appeal it has been stated that due to shortage of required number of pilgrims for the journey they had to cancel the tour. In the written version, the appellants did not mention the name of the mother and no medical certificate has been filed to substantiate the assertion that the mother of the appellant had really been suffering from illness.
In any case, due to cancellation of such programme, the appellants had to undertake the tour by themselves.
In the said tour the respondents/complainants had to bear huge cost because the travel agency organised a Group Tour of 40/50 persons but the respondents had to visit abroad for the purpose of pilgrimage without any assistance or support from the appellants. In this regard, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed-
"Mere, calling off a tour programme is a deficiency in service, calling off the group programme for the purpose of pilgrimage and leaving the individuals to take recourse to the journey without the knowledge and experience of the course of journey, particularly in foreign atmosphere is, of course, a deficiency in service multiple in magnitude on the part of the OP. The tour programme offered on the part of the OP scheduled for 17th May, 2015 to 31st May, 2015 in a foreign country for the first time when abandoned untimely on 16th May, 2015 and that was untimely informed just before the date of departure of journey to the team of three persons who had been cherishing the hope of a comfortable pilgrimage programme to be observed in an auspicious manner under the supervision of a renowned tour operator with a dependable guide escorting sentimental mind as well as weeping heart longing for the almighty. God, had certainly been amounted to deficiency in serviced on the part of the OP".
Considering the materials on record we do not find any reason to differ with the view of the Ld. District Forum. In other words, the Ld. District Forum decided the case on merit with a reason order should not be interfered with.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The final order/Judgment being Order No.9 dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complainant Case No.1/2016 is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit -I for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Dipa Sen ( Maity )] MEMBER