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

M/s. Somli Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Others v/s M/s. Jagatjeet Industries Ltd.

    Revision Petition No. 2044 of 2010

    Decided On, 19 January 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioners: Umesh Nagpal, Advocate. For the Respondent: S.K. Soni, Advocate.

Judgment Text

1. Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to order dated 02.2.2010 in Appeal No. 768 of 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan Circuit Bench at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission"). By its impugned order, the State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein.

2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant paid Rs. 10,05,000/- to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 for conducting the dealers leisure trip to Dubai but the Opposite Parties did not conduct the tour despite receipt of amount and gave cheque no. 442823 towards refund of Rs.7,00,000/- and cheque No. 442824 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant Company with an assurance for return of balance amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-. Out of these two cheques, amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was encashed, wherein amount of Rs.7,00,000/-was returned by the banker with an endorsement on the returned cheque that 'funds were insufficient'. Hence, the Complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.8,05,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.

3. The Opposite Parties filed their written version stated that the Complainant Company was not registered under the Companies Act and no locus standi to file a complaint and that no amount was paid to the Opposite Parties but was instead given to M/s. Lucky Wines, Jaipur and that the Respondent had obtained all the Visas and permits through the Opposite Parties but completed the said tour with the help of M/s. Ritco Travels and that the deficiency in service was on behalf of the Complainant and not on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

4. The District Forum had gone through the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and concluded that Mr. Pradeep Kumar 23-24, March, 2016 is an authorised and competent person to file the complaint. M/s. Lucky Wines owed money to the Complainant and admittedly gave an amount of Rs. 10,05,000/- to the Opposite Parties for conducting leisure trip of Rajasthan dealers to Dubai.

5. The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,05,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum payable from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 10th January, 2006 till the date of realisation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Opposite Parties preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission observed as follows:-

"The question is whether the opposite parties in capacity of a tour company remained deficient in rendering service and if so. whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not raised any dispute with regard to the amount. The opposite parties did receive Rs. 10,05,000/-. This plea of the opposite parties appears baseless that despite making arrangements for booking and visa, the complainant undertook tour with the help of Ritco Travels. The evidence brought on record shows that the opposite parties were unable in conducting the tour. This was the main reason that they returned Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- through two cheques. The contention of the complainant has been that for return of balance amount assurance was given by the opposite parties. If the opposite parties were in a position to conduct the tour then why did they give cheques. On this count no explanation has been furnished. Admittedly the complainant has drawn amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- through cheque. The letter from opposite parties, Annexure-5 dated 21.05.2005 is important, wherein Somesh Bhatnagar, Managing Director has admitted that due to unavoidable reasons the tour could not be conducted and hence they agreed to refund the amount. It was also writ ten Rs. 2,00,000/- had already been drawn by the complainant but the cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- was dishonoured for certain reasons. They will make efforts to return this amount as well. It was also written that the complainant should wait till 31.01.2005 and thereafter he would be free to proceed according to law. From the admission made in this letter it becomes clear that the opposite parties were unable to conduct that tour and this was the main reason of giving promise through this letter to return the amount. In the light of the referred letter the plea of the opposite parties that previously also the complainant agreed to conduct tour through opposite parties, but got the same cancelled causing loss to the opposite parties and this second time also the opposite parties were requested to conduct the tour. But after making arrangement for booking etc. the complainant took unauthorised use of booking and visa went on tour through Ritco Travels. This was a worthless plea. In our opinion the learned District Consumer Forum came to correct conclusion based on facts and documentary proof. Hence this appeal is found unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed".

7. Dissatisfied with this order, the Opposite Parties preferred this Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that cheque for Rs.7,00,000/- was taken up towards security and that only because the Complainant was satisfied with the services rendered by the Petitioner herein, they approached them once again for conducting a second tour. He further contented that visa and documentation charges were not paid by the Complainant and in fact the entire hotel accommodation was booked by them but the Respondent chose to complete the tour with another travel agency namely M/s. Ritco Travels. The learned counsel for the Respondent denied that any documentation or visa processing was done by the Revision Petitioner and in fact stated that the tour was cancelled by them and relied on the Petitioner's letter dated 21.5.2005 which reads as follows:

"I capt Somesh Bhatnagar MD of M/s. Somlly Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. regret for the delay in refund of Dubai Tour payment. We are authorise from your company for the conducting the tour to Dubai for which I have arrange all necessary requirements but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the tour was not conducted. We agree.to refund your money. You were holding our two cheque No. of Rs. 7,00,000 & another ch. No. 442824 of Rs. 2,00,000) cheque no. 442824 already cleared; other cheque (No. 442823) was dishonoured due to some reasons. We will do our best to refund this amount soon. Kindly bear with this matter upto 31/08/2005 after that you will be free to initiate the legal proceeding regarding your remaining refund".

This letter establishes that the Petitioner herein was ready and willing to refund the entire amounts taken. There is not a single whisper about any visa charges or documentation fees incurred. This plea is only raised belatedly and is also not substantiated by any documentary evidence. It is also apparent that the tour was cancelled by the Petitioner himself as seen in the letter, wherein he has stated 'due to unavoidable circumstances the tour could not be conducted'.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/>9. Keeping in view the afore-mentioned letter and the undisputed fact that an amount of Rs. 10,05,000/- has been paid to the Revision Petitioner herein for conducting the group tour of the dealers to Dubai which was subsequently cancelled and also having regard to the fact that it is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Fora, I do not find it a fit case to exercise limited revisional jurisdiction as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC). For all the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission. 10. Hence this Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.