w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Atlas Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. v/s A. Shabbir Ahamed

    First Appeal No. 1456 of 2017

    Decided On, 29 July 2021

    At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKAR
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M/s. Prime Law Associates, Advocates. For the Respondent: N.P. Singri, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Ravishankar, Judicial Member

1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.06.06.2017 passed in CC.No.11/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Koppal which directed the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. along with Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he has approached the agent of Opposite Party and has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.03.2016 and another amount of Rs.60,000/- on 18.03.2016 in order to visit the pilgrimage in ‘Umrah’. After receipt of the said amount, the Opposite Party has not made an attempt to arrange the pilgrimage. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice calling upon them to refund the amount paid. Inspite of legal notice, the Opposite Party had not made any arrangement either to arrange pilgrimage or refund the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through their counsel, but, on 10.04.2017 the counsel for Opposite Party took retirement and version not filed. After considering the evidence adduced by the complainant, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party as above.

4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments.

5. After filing the memorandum of appeal, the appellant not appeared before this Commission to convince this Commission how far the order passed by the District Commission is inconsistent with provisions of Consumer Protection Act. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant submitted his arguments and prayed to confirm the order passed by the District Commission.

6. Any how on going through the memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid Rs.1,60,000/- on 08.03.2016 and 18.03.2016 respectively to the bank account No.100102000070294 which is the account of Opposite Party tours and travels whereas in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant stated that the agent has misrepresented the complainant. The amount received by them was adjusted towards the dues from the other pilgrims who booked for the pilgrimage. Hence, submits that there is no liability to refund the said amount. We are of the opinion that if any mischievous acts done by the Agent, the master is liable. In this case also, admittedly the agent is received an amount be misrepresenting the complainant for arrangement of the Huj. If the pilgrimage was not arranged, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the said amount to the complainant and Opposite Party is at liberty to recover the same from their agent. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ssion is in accordance with law. We do not find any merits in the appeal. Hence, the following; ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant. Forward free copies to both parties.
O R