Endeavour vs Prabirendra Mohan Mitra & 4 Ors.

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.

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.

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.

District Forum vide order dated 03.02.2011, allowed the Complaint. The Petitioner was directed to refund Rs. 87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred) to each of the complainant (taking into account that 1/6th of the tour had been enjoyed) within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. He was also directed to pay a compensation of 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to each of the complainant towards harassment and mental agony and a litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to each of the complainant within the period specified hereinabove. Respondent No. 4 was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to each of the complainant towards harassment and mental agony within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. Respondent No.5 was directed to issue no-objection certificate in favour of Emirates within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. If the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 failed to pay the amounts ordered, they would carry an interest of 10% p.a. till full realization.

Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 13.06.2013, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner and Respondent No.4. It was ordered that both the Appeals bearing Nos. FA/157/2011 and FA/217/2011 stand dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stood confirmed.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondents. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record. Both the Fora have rightly mentioned in their order that the tour package should be considered as a whole and not in part. The foreign tour conducted by the Petitioner was nothing but a Joint Venture between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 to 3 had duly paid entire money for the tour. The receipt showing payment of money was not challenged by the Petitioner. Having taken due consideration money the organisers of the tour were fully responsible for the successful completion of the tour. On the contrary, they irresponsibly shook off their responsibility midway, leaving Respondents No.1 to 3 in the lurch in a foreign land. Respondents No.1 to 3 were put to great inconvenience, as they were left stranded in Europe, without any help and facility and Respondents No. 1 to 3 had to manage on their own to return to Kolkata. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are on the considered view that there is clear deficiency of service, coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the service providers.

In view of the above and the concurrent finding given by both the Fora below, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum as well as State Commission as they have sufficiently justified their respective orders with appropriate findings. We see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merits and hence the same is dismissed.