NIRMAL JIT KAUR vs ONKAR TRAVELS

THE complainant Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur felt aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) vide which her application for setting aside the order of dismissal for default of the Complaint Case No. 51 of 1998 was dismissed. This appeal has consequently been filed by the complainant seeking setting aside of order dated 10.12.2000 and praying for restoration of the complaint case.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent i.e. the Proprietor, Onkar Travels, SCO No. 10-12, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. WE have also perused the record of the case which was summoned from the District Forum-II and have also perused the order which is under challenge in this appeal. The appellants filed the complaint under Sections 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act), praying for compensation for the loss suffered by them due to insufficient and deficient service provided by the opposite party. It appears that the complainants approached the opposite party for purchase of Return Airway Ticket from Delhi to Moscow and Moscow to Milan and paid Rs. 46,000/- which included the price of tickets and service charges. The tickets were issued on 7.5.1997 and on 18.3.1997. The complainants were assured that the tickets were complete in all respect and were of O.K. category. The complainants went to Milan and after spending holiday there, they approached the Air Authorities of Venice for returning to Delhi. The complainants were told that the tickets issued to them were not of O.K. category and were on waiting list up to last week of August, 1997. The complainants contacted the opposite party on telephone from Italy and were told to clear the position. The opposite party is alleged to have assured on telephone that it was their fault and suggested the complainants to come after purchasing new tickets and they would be compensated adequately in terms of money on arriving in India. The complainants purchased fresh tickets at the costs of Rs. 47,000/- and spent a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on taxi from Italy Airport to Airport Venice. They also spent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on telephone from Italy to Chandigarh. The husband of the complainant who is working in Italy lost three working days and compensation for the loss was assessed at Rs. 6,600/-. The complainants on arriving in India contacted the opposite party and asked them to compensate for the said loss but the opposite party refused to entertain the claim of the complainants and it was under these circumstances that the complaint case was filed. This complaint case was fixed for hearing on 12.6.2000 on which date the complainants failed to appear before the District Forum-II and as a result of the absence of the complainants, the complaint was dismissed on the said date i.e. 12.6.2000. Presence of Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate was recorded for the opposite party. Subsequently, restoration application was moved on behalf of the complainants wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that 12.6.2000 happened to be a gazetted holiday and the Courts at Chandigarh did not work. On 13th June, 2000, there was resolution by the General House meeting of the District Bar Association to abstain from work due to sudden death of Shri Inderjit Nischal, Advocate, member of the Bar. The said resolution also contended a direction to abstain from work in Consumer Courts and Labour Courts. It was alleged that the Counsel for the complainants bonafide believed that the cases fixed on 12.6.2000 would automatically be adjourned to some other date. It was also mentioned that the Courts remained closed from 15.6.2000 to 1st July, 2000 due to summer vacations. In the first week of July, the complainants came to know that the complaint case had been dismissed in default on 12.6.2000. The cause of non-appearance before District Forum-II on 12.6.2000 has been mentioned in para 6 as under : "6. That the non-appearance of the applicant on 12.6.2000 was due to bona fide impression of the applicant that Consumer Forum will not be working on the particular date."

The notice of the restoration application was issued to the opposite party who put in appearance through Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate. The District Forum-II after hearing the learned Counsel for the complainants Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the opposite party dismissed the restoration application on the ground that 12.6.2000 was the working day and not a gazetted holiday. The District Forum-II passed the order, inter alia, as under : "... The application has been moved under the impression that the complaint was dismissed in default. Infact it is not so. The complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated. Otherwise also, in the application, it is stated that 12.6.2000 was a gazetted holiday. This is an incorrect submission. 12.6.2000 was the working day. The complainant''s Counsel is unable to specify the name of the holiday gazetted for that date. Having record to the above, we find no force in this application and the same is dismissed."

The order dated 12.6.2000 reads as under : "None for the complainant. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Adv. for O.P. Since 31.3.1999, the complainant has been granted adjournments for producing his evidence. He has not done that. The complaint, therefore, remains unsubstantiated. The complaint is not even verified. Accordingly it is dismissed. Announced. Sd/- Sd/- 12.6.2K. Member President (H.S. Walia)"

THE learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the order passed on 12.6.2000 was mainly and substantially an order of dismissal for default of appearance on part of the complainants. He has further contended that this order was not passed on merits. Apart from it, the ground which has been taken in the restoration application as well as in appeal is that the Counsel for the complainants/appellants was under impression that 12.6.2000 was a gazetted holiday and as such the District Forum will not be working on that date. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the complainants has enclosed in appeal as Annexure-II, a letter sent by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh to the Registrar, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh bearing No. DSJ-EC-00/dated, Chandigarh the January, 2000 on the subject - Local holiday for the year 2000. This letter informed the Registrar of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that during the calendar year 2000, three local holidays will be observed in the Sessions Division of Chandigarh, which were mentioned as under : 1.Martyrdom day of Sri 5.6.2000 Monday Guru Arjan Dev Ji. 2.Nirjala Akadshi 12.6.2000 Monday 3.Narak Chaudash 25.10.2000 Wednesday Roop Chaudash. The copy of this letter was forwarded to all the Judicial Officers, Chandigarh; the President, District Bar Association, Chandigarh and the Reader of his Court. It will be seen that the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh had declared 12.6.2000 (Monday) as a local holiday to be observed in the District Courts at Chandigarh on account of Nirjala Akadshi. It may be pointed out that the two District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh do not observe the holidays which are declared for being observed in the Sessions Division of Chandigarh either by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or as local holidays by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The holidays observed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums/Commission in U.T., Chandigarh are the holidays declared by the U.T. Administration of Chandigarh. It is not the case of the complainants that 12.6.2000 (Monday) happened to be a gazetted holiday declared by the U.T., Administration of Chandigarh. In this view of the matter, the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh was right in saying that the appellants were unable to show that 12.6.2000 happened to be a gazetted holiday to be observed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh. So far as the resolution passed by the District Bar Association, Chandigarh is concerned, the same is of subsequent dates and is consequently quite immaterial for the purpose of this appeal or for that matter the restoration application moved by the complainants. The complainants/appellants were required to show that they had sufficient cause for not appearing before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 12.6.2000 when the case was called on for hearing, which they have failed to show and substantiate. Thus, we find no fault either in fact or in law with the order under appeal. The complainants have failed to show a sufficient cause for their absence or for the absence of their Counsel before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 12.6.2000. Resultantly, this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. However, costs of this appeal shall in the circumstances of the case be borne by the parties themselves. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.