State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cox And Kings Ltd. vs Ansuyaben Desai on 21 December, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 21 12 2021
Date of filling 07 05 2014
Duration 14 07 07
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
APPEAL NO. 855 of 2014
Cox & Kings Ltd.
L-5/6, Digvijay Complex,
Nr. St. Xavier's School,
GhodDod Road,
Surat ...Appellant
(Ori. Opponent)
Vs.
1. Smt Ansuyaben Desai
2. Smt Lataben Desai
3. Vikrambhai M. Desai
Desai Faliyu,
At & Post: Majigam, Via Chikhali,
Dist: Valsad ...Respondents
(Ori. Complainants)
Appearance: Ld. Ad. Mr. Nilay Dave
For the appellant
Legal Representative
Mr. Rajiv Mehta
For the respondents
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Surat (Addi.) in Complaint Case No.707 of 2011.
2. The appellant has preferred instant appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in law. The parties B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 1 of 8 will be referred as per their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
complainants are originally residing at USA and permanent address of the complainants in India is at Valsad, the opponent is having business of tours and travel at Surat, for a break complainants have booked tour in December 2009 at Bankok, Junting, Iceland, Ulal Lumpur, and Singapore for that complainants have paid amount of Rs. 62,000/- ,Rs. 58,600/- and Rs.58,600/-and in total amount Rs.1,79,700/- ,it's receipt Nos. are 28122009bhlkMb, 28122009PeUAGC, 28122009nALArG there after complainants went to the office to take the necessary action regarding the tour visa to complete the formalities, but the complainants got to know that the tourist going to Singapore has to stay for 6 weeks in Singapore But the opponent has not given any information in this regard to the complainant, as the complainants are staying permanently in USA so the 6 weeks in Singapore is very costly so the complainants have cancel the tour, and after that complainants have called and also personally met the opponent for cash back, at that time opponent has informed that they will give the cash back after the approval form the Mumbai branch, and after that opponent has denied for the cash back.
4. So the complainants through his advocate has sent the notice through RPAD on 25.06.2010 and on 26.06.2010 opponent has received it and B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 2 of 8 thereafter on 02.07.2019 and 12.08.2010 given the reply.
5. So in between the complainants and Opponent there is a relation of consumer and service but the opponent did not gave the cash back to the complainants so through the deficiency in service the complainants have filed the complaint for compensation of Rs. 1,79,700/- with interest and cost.
6. Thereby notice was duly served upon to the opponent and they appear and taken the defense that Surat Consumer Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter according to Section 51 of Company Act, the summons should be served to the registered office of the company. So the complaint is not maintainable accordingly, because the office of the opponent is not at Surat. Further the compatible jurisdiction for filing the complaint is Bombay.
7. Thereby the question of jurisdiction was dealt with by the Ld. Trial Forum in detail Ld. Trial Forum has come to conclusion that the payment was made at the Surat branch that's why the complaint was filed at the Surat Consumer Commission and thereby ultimately order passed by the Ld.Trial Forum that amount of Rs.1,79,700/- is to be paid at the interest rate of 9% from the date of filing the complaint.
8. Ld. Ad. Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellant/Ori. Opp. has submitted that the present appeal is filed on the ground that Surat Consumer Commission have no jurisdiction to conduct the matter as per the terms and condition, page no. 45 referred B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 3 of 8 and submitted that in contractual law and if the matters arisen than the Bombay court have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that's why Ld. Trial Forum decision is not just fair and tenable in eye of law.
9. I gone through the judgement of the Ld. Trial forum wherein Ld. Trial forum has come to conclusion that the payment of the tour was deposited with the Surat branch receipt is on record which very much clearly suggest that payment was made to the opponent's Surat branch office so that's why the cause of action is arisen at Surat so the Surat Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Receipt no. 74, 75 are produced at page no. 73 that's why I came to conclusion that decision delivered by the Ld. Trial Forum that Surat Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction is tenable in eye of law and no need to interfere with the said observation.
10. Further Ld. Ad. Mr. N.S. Dave on behalf of the appellant side has submitted that it is not true that the complainants have visited the Visa office there is no such proof that in charge officer has intimated to the complainants that they have to stay for 6 weeks at the Singapore, the booking was made with the opponent only for the limited period of 8 days which is produced at page no. 49 is very much clear thereby in this case opponent cannot have not any knowledge about the changed rules. On this point Legal Representative Mr. Rajiv Mehta has submitted that argument is not acceptable as it is a duty of B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 4 of 8 the opponent tour organizer that they have intimate about the new changes about new rules and regulations of visa provision the said was not intimated by the opponent insurance company.
11. Ld. Ad. Mr. N.S. Dave has submitted that it was not informed by the opponent company to the complainants that they have to stay for 6 weeks, and only because of that complainants have cancelled the package so no award should be passed by the Ld. Trial forum.
12. on this point Legal representative Mr. Rajiv Mehta has submitted before me that there was a notice correspondence with the opponent, at page no. 89 reply of opponent in para 2 where in it is stated that we specifically deny the contents of Para No.3 of the notice where your client have alleged that they were not informed about the changed immigration rules, in advance the information regarding the new immigration stamp required for foreign passport holder was conveyed to the complainants by our staff well in advance the procedure for registration was mandatory and done for security reasons. All documentation details required at the time of registration indicating the specific reason for another visit within a short period were also briefed to the complainant, in advance.
13. Here considering this answer that it can be consider that it was not well within the knowledge of the opponent company that the B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 5 of 8 complainants have to stay for 6 weeks in Singapore that is nowhere mentioned.
14. Legal representative Mr. Mehta has drawn my attention that ticket were issued for limited days and if it is well within the knowledge of the opponent company about the changes in the immigration rules and if it is compulsory that for 6 weeks tourist has to stayed in that country in that circumstances the booking might not have been issued by the opponent company and that's why it was not well within the knowledge of the opponent company attending officers and ultimately the ticket was issued.
15. I am of the opinion that in the last moment complainants were intimated by the visa officer this fact can be accepted and than tour might be cancelled by the complainant, because one person who has plan tour for 8 days only, normally he never be able to go even the changed rules are intimated to the complainants and for more than the reservation and thereby no interaction about the changes are in existence for the 6 weeks is well within the knowledge with the opponent company even that's why we can came to conclusion that some extend the opponent company is responsible for the booking as we have discussed here in such situation they are responsible to refund the amount of the booking of the complainant.
B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 6 of 816. Thereby Ld. Ad. MR. N.S. Dave has submitted that the interest rate awarded by the Ld. Trial is not just fair, in that context legal representative Mr. Mehta has submitted that order of the Ld. Trial Forum's awarded interest rate are not required to be change.
17. Further it is submitted from the opponent side that amount of Rs. 99,437/- are deposited with the commission in this particular appeal/matter and further amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the appellant on the time of filing the appeal
18. Considering all this aspect, argument and observation I pass following order.
FINAL ORDER
i) Appeal No. 855 of 2014 is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Surat (addi.) in Complaint Case No. 707 of 2011 is modified as under.
iii) Hereby Appellant/ Ori. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs. 99,437/- with the interest, which ever accrued in this deposit is to be given to the complainants.
iv) No order as to cost in this appeal.
v) Any deposited amount by the appellant in this appeal i.e. 25,000/- is to be given to the appellant side whichever amount is accrued with interest.
vi) Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost. Registry is directed to send a copy this judgment to the B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 7 of 8 Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum Surat (addi) through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.
Pronounced in the open court on 21thDecember, 2021.
(M.J.Mehta) Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi A-14-855 Page 8 of 8