PARAS HOLIDAYS PVT. LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.2007 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Uitlity Service), Gurgaon. The permanent Lok Adalat has merely ordered refund of the amount of Rs. 1,11,200/- to respondent No. 3 which is required to be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of the order failing which the amount was to bear interest @ 12 percent p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment. The passports of all the four persons were to be collected by respondent No. 3 from the petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3. Shri Arun Kumar Jain - the Consumer on his behalf as well as on behalf of other family members had booked a foreign tour known as Mauj Maja Masti in Europe for a period of 16 days which was to commence from 29.5.2007. The booking was done for 8 persons. For four seats total charges were Rs. 1,85,500/- and EURO 6038 and for another four the total charges were Rs. 2,22,000/- and EURO 4368. A sum of Rs. 63600/- was paid as difference money for each family vide cheque No. 629404 dated 16.9.2005 drawn on Union Bank, Gurgaon. The total amount paid for both the families was Rs. 1,27,200/-. Respondent No. 3 had handed over passports of all the four persons of his family and the passports of other family were handed over later for the purpose of obtaining visa. On account of illness of one of the persons whose condition became serious, respondent No. 3-consumer requested for cancellation of tour firstly conveying it on telephone and then on the advice of the petitioner-Travel agent in writing by moving an application on 30.4.2007. The Consumer respondent No. 3 also requested for refund of the amount paid to the petitioner-travel agent. Thereafter, respondent No. 3-consumer again requested for restoration of the trip but by that time no arrangement could be made as the tour was fully booked. Respondent No. 3 even requested for adjustment of his amount for the next trip but the petitioner refused to accept the request by saying that fresh booking was possible only on further deposit of Rs. 80,000/- as the earlier amount stood forfeited. It was in these circumstances that the Permanent Lok Adalat ordered refund of the amount by observing as under :

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that this petition is devoid of any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has been ill-advised on the first issue raised by their counsel because Section 22-C(8) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for brevity 'the Act') now expressly provides that the where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section 7 of Section 22(C), the Lok Adalat has decided the issue if it did not relate to any offence. Even constitutional validity of this provision was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 9543 of 2002 (S.N. Pandey v. Union of India and another) and the same has been upheld on 28.10.2002. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the first submission made by the learned counsel. The second argument on merits is equally devoid of substance because firstly under Section 22 A of the Act, award of the Lok Adalat has to be regarded as final and it cannot be called in question in another original suit, application or execution proceedings. Although it cannot be concluded that this Court under Article 226 could not interfere yet the scope of interference in such type of matters is extremely limited. This Court may interfere in cases where a totally arbitrary and unreasonable order has been passed by the Lok Adalat. In the present case, the petitioner has merely been asked to refund the amount deposited by respondent No. 3-consumer for undertaking tour to Europe which he has cancelled timely under intimation to the petitioner- travel agent. The amount paid in advance by respondent No. 3-consumer has been ordered to be paid back with interest @ 12 percent. We find no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the order and the same is accordingly upheld.