GURUNATH TRAVELS Vs. A P PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is a revision petition filed by M/s. Gurunath Travels, who were Opposite Parties in the complaint, against the order dated 10th March, 1993 of the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow passed in Appeal No. 1391/SC/92 by which the appeal filed by the present revision petitioner was dismissed. The original complaint was filed by the present respondent Dr. A.P. Paliwal before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Aligarh. Hereinafter the parties to the present petition will be referred to by their original nomenclature in the complaint. The facts as appear from the record are that the Opposite Party is carrying on business of conducting travel tours. The son and daughter-in- law of the complainant planned a mini tour through the South with effect from December 7, 1991. As the said tour commencing on December 7th, 1994 was full, the travel agency informed the Complainant that two seats could be available for the tour commencing from 22nd December, 1991. The Complainant agreed to that proposal. The travel agency issued a receipt for Rs. 7,000/-which had been sent earlier, in the name of the Complainant for the tour commencing from 22nd December, 1991. However, the son of the complainant fell ill. On 13th December, 1991 the travel agency was informed by the Complainant on phone and by telegram on 14th December, 1991 and by letter of the same date to cancel the booking for the tour and asked for the refund of Rs. 7,000/-. By telegram dated 14th December, 1991 the travel agency informed the Complainant that the refund of the cancellation is not admissible as per clause in the pamphlet though substitutes for two seats are admissible. Some correspondence took place between the parties but the travel agency refused to refund the amount. Thereupon the Complainant filed a complaint claiming refund of Rs. 7,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% alleging that it was height of injustice and high handedness on the part of the travel agency to refuse to refund when notice for cancellation of the booking was given to the agency 10 days in advance. It was also stated that the pamphlet was never sent to him.

(2.) The Complainant was contested by the Opposite Party by filing a counter. It was alleged that the booking was made by Dr. B.K. Paliwal, Tohalkaranji, after obtaining the information from the Kolhapur representative of the agency vide letter dated 30th October, 1991 and not by the Complainant. The Complainant had received the literature/pamphlet of tour from its Kolhapur representative and is well aware of the rules and regulations. From the letter dated 14th December, 1991 it is clear that the son of the Complainant was sick since 10th November, 1991 and if at that time they were informed, some other person could have been arranged in place of the complainant. However, the Complainant informed about the cancellation of the booking only on 14th December, 1991 when only 7 days were left for the tour. In such a short time alternative arrangement could not be made and it was difficult to get any more passengers as the advertisement had been closed. An amount of Rs. 200/- which was sent for booking of seats in train from Poona to Agra could be refunded. It may be mentioned here that the cost of the tour per seat was Rs. 3,400/- and Rs. 200/- extra was sent to the travel agency for booking the seats for the son and daughter- in-law of the complainant from Poona to Agra.

(3.) It appears that the Opposite Party had sent its counter to the District Forum by post but nobody appeared before it on their behalf. The District Forum held that the action of the Opposite Party is not refunding the booking charges was illegal and unfair trade practice as the Opposite Party had received intimation of cancellation of the booking much prior to the commencement of the tour and there was sufficient time to fill the vacancies. Accordingly it ordered for refund of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant.