BIMALKUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 51/2019 dtd. 2/7/2019 dismissing the appeal against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara (in short, 'District Forum') in Complaint No. 541 of 2016 dtd. 5/1/2019.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner approached the respondent who is in the travel and tourism business to book a tour to Europe, including sight-seeing trip in London in 2015. He booked a sightseeing tour in London for one person on 26th and 27/8/2015 and for two persons on 29/8/2015 and a holiday package for Europe of 14 nights and 15 days from 30/8/2015 to 13/9/2015 through the respondent at a cost of Rs.5,94,232.00 which was paid in installments by cheques. It is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner had also paid Rs.90.00 for booking file for European tour. The petitioner alleged that while he had asked for a package tour for one person for sightseeing in London on 26th and 27/8/2015, the respondent booked for two persons. The petitioner alleged that the respondent resorted to cheating by charging huge amount of Rs.30,366.00The respondent refunded Rs.12,365.00 and retained Rs.17,988.96. The petitioner alleged that the respondent refunded Rs.134.00 considering the exchange value of the Pound at Rs.93.10 without consent of the petitioner. The petitioner further alleged that he paid Rs.90.00 for two persons for 15 days @ Rs.3.00 per day for which no receipt was issued. This was justified by the respondent as a tip for the bus driver in Europe for the 15 days road journey. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum and sought direction to the respondent to issue a receipt for Rs.90,.00 Rs.2,00,000.00 by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,00,000.00 by way of cost of litigation with interest @ 24% per annum.

(3.) The District Forum partially allowed the appeal of the respondent and ordered as under: