HUNGRY BAGS Vs. T.S. BAKSHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 498 of 2013 Hungry Bags Vs. Lt. Col. (Retd.) T.S. Bakshi by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.1/Petitioner, displayed on-line advertisement, on the internet, in the end of November 2013 (infact 2012), vide which it offered a holiday package of 4 nights/5 days, in Dubai, during the shopping festival, in January 2013. The complainant/Respondent No.1 showed interest in the same, to which Opposite Party No.1, responded and sent an e-mail on 03.12.2012, wherein complete details of the tour, and also the cost of package were given. The complainant made payment of Rs.10,000/-, through cheque, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Opposite Party No.2/Respondent No. 2, and credited to the account of Opposite Party No.1. A sum of Rs.28,000/- was also paid through cheque, remitted by RTGS, by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.1. A sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid, in cash, to Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1, sent air travel documents and confirmation voucher to the complainant. It was stated that, on reaching Dubai, at 0600 hrs, on 25th January, 2013, the complainant and his wife were informed that the rooms would be available to them, only at 1400 hrs, and till then, they had to wait, in the reception area of the hotel. Ultimately, on paying extra amount of 240 dirhams, a room was made available, to the complainant, and his wife. It was further stated that, as per the confirmation voucher, copy whereof is at Annexure B, two complimentary dinners were offered, on 26th & 27th January 2013, in the Indian Restaurant. It was further stated that after having dinner on 26th January 2013, when the complimentary voucher was presented, it was not honoured by the hotel Authorities, and, as such, the complainant had to pay an extra amount of 115 dirhams each, for the same. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had failed to organize/arrange the room, on arrival of the complainant and his wife, at Dubai, and they had to pay extra cost, for availing the same. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte before District Forum and OP No. 2 in its written statement admitted remittance of payment through cheque as alleged by the complainant, but prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency on his part. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Appeal filed by the OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Respondent No. 2's presence was dispensed with.