CLASSIC GROUP OF HOTELS Vs. M.N. KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 222 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant -opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 40,000 to the respondents complainants together with interest @ 9% p.a. pendente lite and future; Rs. 20,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation expenses. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainants became the members of the Special Holiday Scheme floated by the opposite parties and entered into an agreement with the authorised representative of the opposite party No. 2 on 24.4.2005. The complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards Membership Fee. In the year 2005, the complainants applied with the opposite parties to Shimla Tour Package, but the opposite parties did not provide any tour package to the complainants. Again in the year 2006, the complainants applied for Bhimtal Tour Package, but the same was also not provided by the opposite parties. In the year 2007, the complainants asked the opposite parties for providing reservation for Manali trip, but the complainants did not receive any confirmation regarding the booking. It is alleged that the opposite parties did not provide any tour package to the complainants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

(2.) THE appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that under the relevant scheme, the accommodation was to be provided in Hotels situated at Haridwar, Chamba and Nainital only and not at any other place; that the complainants were not given any assurance for providing accommodation at Shimla, Bhimtal or Kullu Manali and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) NONE appeared on behalf of respondent -complainants. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have also perused the objections filed by the respondents as well as the record of the case.