M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THE instant petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.2007 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Uitlity Service), Gurgaon. The permanent Lok Adalat has merely ordered refund of the amount of Rs. 1,11,200/- to respondent No. 3 which is required to be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of the order failing which the amount was to bear interest @ 12 percent p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment. The passports of all the four persons were to be collected by respondent No. 3 from the petitioner.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3. Shri Arun Kumar Jain - the Consumer on his behalf as well as on behalf of other family members had booked a foreign tour known as Mauj Maja Masti in Europe for a period of 16 days which was to commence from 29.5.2007. The booking was done for 8 persons. For four seats total charges were Rs. 1,85,500/- and EURO 6038 and for another four the total charges were Rs. 2,22,000/- and EURO 4368. A sum of Rs. 63600/- was paid as difference money for each family vide cheque No. 629404 dated 16.9.2005 drawn on Union Bank, Gurgaon. The total amount paid for both the families was Rs. 1,27,200/-. Respondent No. 3 had handed over passports of all the four persons of his family and the passports of other family were handed over later for the purpose of obtaining visa. On account of illness of one of the persons whose condition became serious, respondent No. 3-consumer requested for cancellation of tour firstly conveying it on telephone and then on the advice of the petitioner-Travel agent in writing by moving an application on 30.4.2007. The Consumer respondent No. 3 also requested for refund of the amount paid to the petitioner-travel agent. Thereafter, respondent No. 3-consumer again requested for restoration of the trip but by that time no arrangement could be made as the tour was fully booked. Respondent No. 3 even requested for adjustment of his amount for the next trip but the petitioner refused to accept the request by saying that fresh booking was possible only on further deposit of Rs. 80,000/- as the earlier amount stood forfeited. It was in these circumstances that the Permanent Lok Adalat ordered refund of the amount by observing as under : "We have heard the parties. Except for the processing charges which are too excessive (at the rate of 2,000/- per person) there is no mention in the written statement of any other expense. For cancellation the request had been made on 30.4.07 in writing even while the tour was due on 29.5.07. So there was still one month in the commencement of the tour. So neither the booking of any accommodation was made nor any steps for obtaining visas were taken and no evidence has been shown for any steps to have been taken. The passports of only four members have been supplied while the passports of the remaining members of the package tour were still to be supplied. So there was no question of taking steps for obtaining visas. Though the deduction of full processing charges was not warranted because no steps has been taken for the tour arrangements because of early request of cancellation of tour, still on our persuasion the applicant's counsel has agreed for the deduction of processing charges at the Rs. 2,000/- per person. The statement of counsel for the applicant has been recorded in that behalf. As already mentioned no other deduction is warranted. The counsel for the respondent has not agreed to make any statement regarding that deduction but as there is no evidence that the respondents incurred any other expenses no further deduction can be ordered. In view of our above discussion the award is passed to the effect that the respondent shall refund the amount of Rs. 1,11,200/- (Rs. 1,27,200/- minus Rs. 16,000/-) to the applicant within 15 days from today failing which the amount shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from today till the date of payment. The passport of four persons, which are still lying with the respondent, shall be collected by the applicant from the office of respondent." Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two arguments before us. Firstly, he has submitted that the order passed by the Lok Adalat was without jurisdiction because the petitioners-travel agents have never accorded their consent for any compromise as is mandatory in law. He has further submitted that even on merits the order deserves to be set aside. He has argued that there is no reason given in the order for refund of the amount which infact stood forfeited.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that this petition is devoid of any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has been ill-advised on the first issue raised by their counsel because Section 22-C(8) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for brevity 'the Act') now expressly provides that the where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section 7 of Section 22(C), the Lok Adalat has decided the issue if it did not relate to any offence. Even constitutional validity of this provision was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 9543 of 2002 (S.N. Pandey v. Union of India and another) and the same has been upheld on 28.10.2002. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the first submission made by the learned counsel. The second argument on merits is equally devoid of substance because firstly under Section 22 A of the Act, award of the Lok Adalat has to be regarded as final and it cannot be called in question in another original suit, application or execution proceedings. Although it cannot be concluded that this Court under Article 226 could not interfere yet the scope of interference in such type of matters is extremely limited. This Court may interfere in cases where a totally arbitrary and unreasonable order has been passed by the Lok Adalat. In the present case, the petitioner has merely been asked to refund the amount deposited by respondent No. 3-consumer for undertaking tour to Europe which he has cancelled timely under intimation to the petitioner- travel agent. The amount paid in advance by respondent No. 3-consumer has been ordered to be paid back with interest @ 12 percent. We find no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the order and the same is accordingly upheld.;