State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Seema Raghwa. vs Sh. Chaman Thakur. on 10 September, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 27/2019
Date of Presentation: 15.01.2019
Order Reserved on : 16.04.2019
Date of Order : 10.09.2019
......
Seema Raghwa wife of Shri Lachhman Singh resident of Village
Dodhwan P.O. Sundernagar-1 Tehsil Sundernagar District Mandi
(H.P).
...... Appellant/
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Chaman Thakur son of Shri Het Ram resident of VPO Ner Chowk
Tehsil Balh District Mandi Himachal Pradesh.
......
...Respondent/
Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. P.S. Sen Advocate.
For Respondent : Ex-parte.
JUSTICE P.S.
P.S . RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
PRESIDENT :
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 19.12.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission (Nomenclature of District Consumer Forum converted to District Consumer Commission vide new Consumer Protection Act 2019) in consumer complaint No.143/2018 titled Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur.
1
? Yes.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019 Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Smt. Seema filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that opposite party is engaged in business of carrying pilgrims to religious journey for 52 (Fifty two) days through various cities and religious places and took consideration amount from complainant to the tune of Rs.31000/-(Thirty one thousand).
It is pleaded that opposite party provides travelling facilities and other expenses of religious tour. It is pleaded that complainant paid consideration amount to opposite party to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) for pilgrimage tour purpose vide cheque No.014101. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant paid an amount of Rs.21000/-(Twenty one thousand) to Sh. Sanju who is agent of opposite party before starting journey on dated 20.12.2017. It is further pleaded that complainant started religious tour journey from Sunder Nagar and fell serious ill at Bilaspur and could not continue further journey due to illness. It is further pleaded that complainant has to return back to Sunder Nagar in the midway process of religious tour due to her illness. It is pleaded that complainant has paid money to opposite party in presence of other pilgrims.
3. It is pleaded that complainant requested to refund consideration amount after deducting reasonable amount but opposite party did not accept the request of complainant. It is 2 Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019 pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of refund of Rs.31000/-(Thirty one thousand) alongwith interest. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. None appeared on behalf of opposite party despite service. Learned District Consumer Commission proceeded ex-parte against opposite party.
5. Learned District Consumer Commission dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Commission complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of complainant and we have also perused entire record carefully. Opposite party did not appear before Learned District Consumer Commission despite notice. Opposite party was proceeded ex-parte by State Commission.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party deals in business of carrying pilgrims to religious journey for 52 (Fifty two) days 3 Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019 through various cities and religious places. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party charged Rs.31000/-(Thirty one thousand) for religious tour. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party assured to provide travelling facility and other expenses of meals etc. There is further recital in affidavit that pilgrims were to be taken to various religious places situated in M.P., Rajasthan and southern parts of India. There is recital in affidavit that complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) through cheque No.014101 on dated 22.11.2017 and also paid advance amount of Rs.21000/-(Twenty one thousand) in cash to Shri Sanju agent of opposite party on 20.12.2017 before commencement of religious tour journey. There is recital in affidavit that religious tour journey was started from Sunder Nagar and complainant fell serious ill at Bilaspur and could not continue further religious journey and returned back home due to her illness beyond control of complainant.
9. There is recital in affidavit that complainant suffered low blood pressure and other disease. There is recital in affidavit that complainant requested opposite party to return amount of Rs.31000/-(Thirty one thousand) after deducting reasonable amount but opposite party did not return amount and committed deficiency in service. There is recital in affidavit that complainant sustained huge mental tension and harassment.4
Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019
10. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Bhag Singh in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant paid an amount of Rs.31000/-(Thirty one thousand) to opposite party for pilgrimage tour purpose. There is recital in affidavit that pilgrimage tour journey was to be performed in various places situated in M.P., Rajasthan and other southern places. There is recital in affidavit that complainant namely Smt. Seema fell serious ill at Bilaspur and could not continue her further religious journey and returned back to Sunder Nagar. There is recital in affidavit that complainant paid advance consideration amount to the tune of Rs.21000/-(Twenty one thousand) to opposite party in his presence to Sh. Sanju who is agent of opposite party and also paid advance amount of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) through cheque. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant fell serious ill at Bilaspur and could not continue her further religious journey and returned back to Bilaspur in the midway process of religious journey and on this ground complainant is legally entitled for refund of advance consideration amount to the tune of Rs.31000/-(Thirty one thousand) is decided accordingly. Complainant did not place on record terms and conditions of religious pilgrimage journey. Complainant also 5 Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019 did not place on record medical certificate from Medical Officer in order to prove that complainant fell serious ill at Bilaspur and could not continue her journey. There is not documentary evidence on record in order to prove that opposite party undertook to return entire advance consideration amount or part consideration amount paid by complainant in the eventuality of stoppage of religious pilgrimage journey by complainant in midway process of religious tour journey.
12. Complainant also did not file affidavit of eye witness in order to prove that opposite party undertook to refund consideration amount in case complainant stopped religious tour journey in midway. Oral or written terms and conditions of religious tour agreement executed inter se parties not proved on record. Even there is no recital in affidavit of Smt. Seema that opposite party undertook to refund advance consideration amount in case complainant stopped religious tour journey in midway process. Even there is no recital in affidavit of Shri Bhag Singh that opposite party undertook to refund advance consideration amount in the eventuality of stoppage of religious tour journey by complainant in midway process of religious journey. In the absence of above stated facts and in the absence of undertaking by opposite party mentioned supra State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the 6 Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019 ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to grant relief to complainant as prayed.
13. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that opposite party did not provide bus facilities and also did not provide any expenses of meal etc. for various religious places of M.P, Rajasthan and southern places to complainant. There is no evidence on record that opposite party carry other passenger in lieu of complainant in religious tour journey. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act are quasi judicial proceedings and both the parties are governed under terms and conditions of oral or written agreement. It is well settled law that no party should be allowed to flout terms and conditions of oral or written agreement executed inter se parties. Complainant did not place any documentary evidence in order to prove that terms and conditions of agreement executed inter se parties and complainant also did not place on record any affidavit of eye witness relating to terms and conditions of return of consideration amount in case complainant stop religious tour journey in midway process. Concept of forfeiture of only earnest money by opposite party not proved on record. It is held that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite party not proved on record. See CPR 2016(4) 487 NC Amandeep Kaur Versus DLF Universal Ltd. & others. See 2017(1) CPR 315 NC M/s. Krishna Kunj Versus Rabindra 7 Seema Raghwa Versus Chaman Thakur F.A. No.27/2019 Nath Basu and others. See 2018(1) CPR 335 NC Kavita Sikka Versus Oasis Landmark LLP and Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Consumer Forum (Nomenclature changed to District Consumer Commission vide latest Consumer Protection Act 2019) is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Certified copy of order be sent to Learned District Consumer Commission for information forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member 10.09.2019 K.D 8