Citation- IV (2014) CPJ 639; 2014(4) CPR 449
The Respondents/complainants participated in ‘Canton Fair 2005’ during the tour of China between 25th April, 2005 to 30th April, 2005. The tour was organized by the Petitioner on payment of Rs.77,700( US $ 1468). According to the advertisement presented by the Petitioner, there should be display of about 7500 stalls showing recent technology and the Respondents were interested in knowing the same in furniture and interior but all such display of stalls had already concluded, by the time they reached. Furthermore, the lodgings provided to them was below standard. Even, the air-conditioning went out of order for more than 24 hours and hence, caused discomfort. The Respondents asked to five the refund of the amount, after they return. But the Petitioner refused to entertain the claim. The Complaint filed in the District Forum was allowed and the Forum directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.77,700/- (US $ 1468) together with Rs.2000 as cost. Meanwhile, Respondent No.1 pass away and no legal heir was brought. The ex- parte decision was given in the appeal against Respondent No.2 as it was decided in the absence of the Petitioner. Present revision petition against the State Commission’s order dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000, which is to be paid to the Consumer Legal Aid A/c of the Commission. Then, the present appeal was against the order dated 27-02-2013 in F.A.No.A/07/1086 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.
a.Whether it was ethical to include the deceased Vivian Rodrigues as a Respondent in the revision petition?
b Whether the petitioner, Orbit Tours & Trade Fairs Pvt. Ltd. Is liable to refund back the amount to the respondent?
Sections referred under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:-
a. Sections 2(1) (g) & (o)
b. Section 19
c. Section 21(b)
a) It was observed by the National Commission that the Petitioner had been insensitive and unsympathetic in pursuing litigation before the State Commission as well as the National Commission as he included the deceased Vivian Rodrigues as Respondent in the earlier and present revision petition.
b) It was establish that both the District Forum and the State Commission had valued the facts, circumstances and evidence led by the parties and arrived at an accurate decision, that the petitioner, Orbit Tours & Trade Fairs Pvt. Ltd. Is liable to refund back the amount to the respondents.
c) The National commission also referred to the case of Rubi Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co Ltd 2011 (3) SCALE 654, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no material irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of the forum below to permit interference.
the revision petition was dismissed.