PAWAN GARG Vs. DISCOVERIES AND DESTINATIONS
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2010-9-5
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 06,2010

Pawan Garg Appellant
VERSUS
Discoveries And Destinations Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) APPELLANT /complainantPawan Garg (in short, 'the complainant') has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, 'the District Forum').
(2.) COMPLAINANT in his complaint pleaded that he being newly married person purchased Air Sahara Holiday Plan 2003 from Renaissance Goa Resorts worth Rs. 21,599 for self and his wife from respondent No. 1, who is franchisee of respondent No. 2 and paid Rs. 20,000 vide receipt No. 519 dated 21.4.2003. Rs. 3500 vide receipt No. 520 dated 24.4.2003, Rs. 24,000 vide receipt No. 518 dated 21.4.2003 and in all paid sum of Rs. 47,500 to the respondents. Complainant also spent about Rs. 3000 on Railway tickets from Ludhiana to New Delhi and New Delhi to Ludhiana for himself and for his wife. Respondent No. 2 booked the said package vide receipt dated 22.4.2003 and issued four Air Tickets bearing Nos. 7055665625, 26, 27 and 28 from Delhi to Goa, Goa to Mumbai and Mumbai to Delhi. The original air tickets along with original railway tickets and cash of Rs. 1100 was mis -placed by the complainant at Ludhiana on 24.4.2003 and same could not be traced and the complainant lodged a DDR No. 24 dated 24.4.2003 with the Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Complainant immediately contacted and informed about the mis -placing of the air ticket and requested to issue the duplicate tickets of the said package but the respondents kept on putting of one pretext or the other and failed to issue the duplicate tickets. The respondents were directed to refund the amount and in this regard a letter dated 3.5.2002 was written to respondent No. 3 but they refused to pay back the amount and gave a frivolous reply dated 17.5.2003.
(3.) NON -issuance of duplicate tickets or non -refund of the amount of the package by the respondents amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the respondents. Lastly, respondent No. 3 sent a letter dated 3.7.20C3 admitting to issue fresh air ticket and holiday package as a gesture of recovery but it was not possible for the complainant to visit Goa as his wife became pregnant. To get the amount refunded the complainant has to run from pillar to post which caused mental agony and the complainant also suffered damages and could not go to Goa for Honeymoon and the respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 3 lacs as compensation, refund of the amount of Rs. 47,500, Rs. 3,000 for railway tickets and interest. Respondent No. 1 filed the written statement taking objections that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1 nor any damages has been claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua respondent No. 1. Complainant has lost the original ticket due to his own negligence and there was no term and conditions of sale of air ticket for providing duplicate ticket or holiday plan vouchers in case of loss or refund of money. On merits, it was admitted that package plan was floated and respondent No. 1 received Rs.47,500 from complainant. It was also admitted that the complainant had contacted respondent No. 1 on 24.4.2003 but respondent No. 1 explained to the complainant its inability to issue duplicate air ticket and pointed out to the complainant the terms as printed on air ticket, which are as under: "Ensure Safe Custody of Your Ticket, No Refund is Permissible Against Lost Ticket". and prayed that complaint be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.