M/S. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Yunus Khan

THESE revision petitions arise out of the common order of State Commission involving same question of law; hence, decided by common order.

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal Nos. 368 to 373 and 636 to 645 of 2012 - M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yunus Khan & anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Shafique Ansari & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulam Hussain Ansari & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Altaf Hussain & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Mukhtiar Khan & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haneef Mohammed & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Navneet Kumar Sharma & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.A. Shaikh & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.R. Patwa & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Atul Kumar & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Sunil Kumar Verma & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajeev Bhatt & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.G. Goswami & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Sharma & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra P. Vorana & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 under Leave Travel Concession scheme of the Government got booked return air tickets for themselves and for their family from Indore to Delhi and Delhi to Baghdora and back to Indore. Complainants paid full amount to OP No. 1/Respondent No. 2. Complainants along with their families reached Delhi, but on reaching Delhi came to know that OP No. 1/petitioner has cancelled return tickets for Delhi -Baghdora -Delhi and has taken back refund of the amount. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 got booked tickets from OP No. 2. As tickets were cancelled, complainants along with their family had to return back to Indore and had to return entire LTC amount along with interest to the Government. Inspite of notice, OPs have not have refunded the amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainants filed separate complaints claiming refund of amount and compensation. OPs did not appear before District Forum and they were proceeded ex -parte. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaints and directed OPs jointly and severally to return ticket charges with 8% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.5,000/ - for mental agony and Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 and he was proceeded ex -parte.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 in person and their authorized representative.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner received intimation of the impugned order on 4.9.2012 when he received summons in the Execution Petition and filed revision petition on 3.12.2012; hence, there is no delay in filing revision petition and even if there is delay it may be condoned. There is nothing on record to prove that petitioner got impugned order before 4.9.2012. In such circumstances, it may be presumed that petitioner got intimation of impugned order on 4.9.2012 and revision petition filed on 3.12.2012 is within time and even if there is any delay in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither any payment was received by the petitioner from the complainant nor from OP NO. 1, nor there was any privity of contract between the complainant and petitioner; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against petitioner and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be modified to the extent of liability of petitioner. On the other hand, respondent submitted that petitioner has received back amount from the airlines and order passed by learned Sate Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that complainant made payment to OP No. 1 M/s. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. for booking of tickets, hotel, etc. and OP NO. 1 got air tickets booked through petitioner. Respondent admitted before me that they have not made any payment to the petitioner, in such circumstances, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and petitioner and merely because petitioner got air tickets cancelled, no deficiency of service can be imputed on the part of petitioner qua complainant.

RESPONDENT submitted that OP No. 1 made payment of money to the petitioner who got tickets booked and he had no right to get the tickets cancelled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that OP No. 1 did not make any payment towards air tickets to the petitioners and closed its office without disclosing whereabouts and in such circumstances, air tickets were cancelled. Complainant has not placed any document on record to substantiate his argument that any payment was received by petitioner from OP No. 1. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that on the assurance of OP NO. 1/petitioner got the tickets booked and when payment was not received, petitioner got the tickets cancelled and received refund.

FOR the sake of argument, even if it is presumed that petitioner received amount from OP NO. 1, petitioner is liable for any deficiency only to OP No. 1 and not to the complainants.

PERUSAL of record further reveals that amount paid by complainant to OP No. 1 includes air ticket charges as well hotel charges and admittedly hotel arrangements were not to be made by the petitioner and there is no iota of evidence to prove that the amount of hotel booking was paid by OP No. 1 to the petitioner; even then, District forum committed error in fastening liability for refund of whole amount on the petitioner jointly with OP No. 1 and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention towards letter written by OP No. 1 to Administrative Officer regarding refund of LTC (air ticket amount) in which OP No. 1 admitted that they are identifying and working out specific amount to be refunded to the particular employee of CAT which also makes it clear that only OP NO. 1 was liable to refund the amount to the complainant and liability has wrongly been fastened on the petitioner for refund of amount.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that petitioner was not liable to refund any amount to the complainant and learned District forum committed error in holding petitioner jointly liable with OP No. 1 for refund of amount and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal Nos. 368 to 373 and 636 to 645 of 2012 - M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yunus Khan & anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Shafique Ansari & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulam Hussain Ansari & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Altaf Hussain & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Mukhtiar Khan & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haneef Mohammed & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Navneet Kumar Sharma & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.A. Shaikh & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.R. Patwa & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Atul Kumar & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Sunil Kumar Verma & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajeev Bhatt & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.G. Goswami & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Sharma & Anr., M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra P. Vorana & Anr. is set aside and order dated 1.10.2009 passed by learned District Forum in Complaint Case No.49/09 - Yunus Khan Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.53/09 - Md. Shafik Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.50/09 - Gulam Hussain Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,Complaint Case No.52/09 - Altaf Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.51/09 - Md. Mukhtir Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.54/09 - Hanif Mohmad Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1514/09 - Navneet Kumar Sharma Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,Complaint Case No.1380/08 - M.A. Sheik Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1379/08 - S.R. Patwa Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1376/08 - Atul Kumar Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1377/08 - Ajit Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1466/08 - Sunil Verma Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1515/08 - Rajive Bhatt Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1378/08 - S.G. Goswami Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1516/08 - Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Complaint Case No.1465/08 - Rajinder P. Borana Vs. Timeless Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is modified and liability fastened on petitioner is set aside and complaint is dismissed against petitioner with no order as to costs.