BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

PUNE, AT PUNE.

Consumer Complaint No. PDF/---/2017

Mr.Sunny
Pune, Maharashtra Complainant

Versus

M/s. Happy Travelers pvt ltd Opponent

WRITTEN ARGUMENT / SUBMISSION

1) the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable

in law and is liable to be dismissed as such.
2) the complainant was informed that the package would be subject to the
availability of the flight tickets and accommodation on the particular
date. on 03.03.2017 the representative had informed the complainant that the
tickets and the accommodation can be booked only on the subject to
availability hence the booking cannot be guaranteed, this was informed well
in advance before receiving any payment from the complainant.
3) The representative’s action did not constitute a professional misconduct
and there was no deficiency of service
Merely not booking tickets did not constitute a deficiency of service , as
mentioned in para 1) the complainant was exclusively informed that the
tickets would be booked only on subject of availability. Further in a similar
case mere cancelation of ticket also did not constitute a deficiency in
service.1
1
M/s. Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd Vs. Yunus Khan and another
4) The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be
dismissed under Section 26 of the Act.
5) The complainant allegation of unfair trade practice is false and baseless
The complainant has accused the representative of demanding payment for
the unbooked tickets, however the payment which was reasonable
,demanded in order to cover costs of the bookings , further profit was not
demanded either to be considered unfair.
6) Thus, the present complaint is an exaggeration beyond proportion
despite the fact that the complainant is himself responsible for delay
The representative had asked the complainant to deposit the full amount of
the package so that he could book hotels as well as the return flight tickets,
as the total cost of the flight tickets was Rs. 52,000/- alone and he had
received only partial payment. The complainant however delayed the
payment requested the representative that he would deposit the balance
amount on arrival to Andaman, Which The representative explained his
inability to accept the request and asked him to pay at least the total cost of
the package excluding his profit which was around Rs, 70,000/-.which was a
reasonable expectation from the complainant in order for the representative
to fulfil his service towards the complainant .Further the complainant
himself had the discretion to decide dates for the trip, thus since he delayed
the payment in lieu for booking of the tickets and the accommodation, he
was solely responsible for the delay in booking of the return flight tickets.
7) The complainant’s claim of the unresponsiveness of the representative is
false and exaggerated The representative has been aptly communicating
with the complainant , has been giving him reasonable explanation to his
queries , requests and complaints, the representative has duly responded to
 the complainant’s calls ,hence the complainant has exaggerated the same
accusing the communication of being unsatisfactory.
8) The complainant’s claim for compensation is excessive
The complainant claimed an amount of 75000/- as refund , however this is
excessive since the representative had already booked the one way ticket to
Andaman, rendered other services as well, and hence it is contested that this
payment is non-refundable as the service has been rendered. Further due to
the delay in payment by the complainant they had caused a loss to the
company in the bookings.
9) The Hon’ble District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate upon the dispute involved
The complainant has filed the complaint to the Pune district consumer
redressal forum , this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a
consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of
section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and is exclusively triable
by a Civil Court and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed
summarily on this score alone. Cases such as M/S. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt.
vs Arun Sinha2, M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Harish Chandra Trevedi3, Abhishek
Mishra v Paulo toursit centre, travel agent/Tour operators, Thomas Cook
India Ltd. vs Sh. R.K. Jain & Ors 4. All held that since the opponent did not
reside in that particular location , that consumer forum did not have
jurisdiction over the complaint

10) PRAYERS;

(i). Contentions raised by the complainants be rejected

(ii). The Complainant, therefore, prays to this Hon’ble;

2
M/S. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. vs Arun Sinha 2012(2)C.P.C.91

3
M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Harish Chandra Trevedi 1999 CPJ 367
4
 a) The claim of the complainants regarding refund, mental agony , legal
charges be rejected.
b) The Complainant , ordered to pay Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) on account of legal cost, time and financial loss.
c) Any other order, this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to pass, in the
interest of justice

- The Defendant

M/s. Happy Travelers pvt ltd

Advocate for the petitioner

Adv GRAHM

Addendum
The relevant provision is section 11 (2) of The consumer protection Act
1986
Jurisdiction of the District Forum- 2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a
District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are
more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually
and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or
personally works for gain, or
(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the
time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily
resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally
works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the
District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or
carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain,
as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.