ENDEAVOUR Vs. PRABIRENDRA MOHAN MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission"?) in F.A. No. 157 of 2011 dated 13.06.2013.

(2.) In the Complaint Case, it was stated that Respondents No.1 to 3 had booked a tour to Europe in February, 2006 with the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- per head. Respondents No.1 to 3 started their journey from Kolkata on 26.06.2006 and the touring party reached Vienna on 27.06.2006. The Representative of the Petitioner accompanied Respondents No.1 to 3 upto Vienna and thereafter the tour management was handed over to Respondent No.4 for completion of the rest of the tour. On 28.06.2006, the touring party under the leadership of Respondent No.4 reached Venice and on the next date when the team was on their way to Florence, the bus by which the touring party was travelling broke down and at that juncture it was announced, on behalf of Respondent No.4, that they were not in a position to complete the tour program because the Petitioner had not paid the tour cost to Respondent No.4. It was further stated that on repeated requests by Respondents No.1 to 3, Respondent No. 4 agreed to accommodate Respondents No.1 to 3 and other tour party in a Hotel for the night of 29.06.2006 and arranged their return to Florence Station. From there, Respondents No.1 to 3 were asked to make their own arrangement. It is alleged that Respondent No.4 informed Respondents No.1 to 3 that on making necessary payments directly to Respondent No.4, they could continue with the Europe tour. Respondents No.1 to 3, therefore segregated themselves from the team and somehow managed their return to Kolkata on their own. A Complaint was, thus, filed by the Respondent No.1 to 3 alleging deficiency of service on part of the Petitioner and Respondent No.4.

(3.) The Petitioner filed a Written Statement in which he contended that it was the responsibility of Respondent No.4 to continue the tour program after the Petitioner handed over the touring party to their representative at Venice. Hence, the Petitioner averred that in the absence of any information by Respondent No.4 with respect to abandoning of the tour program, the Petitioner could not be held liable for any negligence or deficiency in service.