M/S Akbar Travels and M/S. Benzy Holidays, Rep. by the Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs. S.A.S. Navaz and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
m.k. abdulla sona : hon. acting president this appeal prefers from the order passed by the cdrf, ernakulam in cc no. 333/2010 order dated: 31.01.2012 which filed on 5.06.2010. the appellants are the opposite parties 1 ,2, 4 and 5. the respondents are the complainant no.1 to 13 in the above said cc. 2.   the appellants prefers this appeal under the order of the forum below that; the opposite parties shall pay the proportionate amount of rs.24,300/- to the 13 complainants out of the 15 participants in the tour package and the other 2 having not been contestants. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the amounts proportionately as per ext.a3 to a6 in indian currency with interest 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. the opposite parties shall jointly and.....

Judgment:

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. ACTING PRESIDENT

This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 333/2010 order dated: 31.01.2012 which filed on 5.06.2010. The appellants are the opposite parties 1 ,2, 4 and 5. The respondents are the complainant No.1 to 13 in the above said CC.

2.   The appellants prefers this appeal under the order of the Forum below that; the opposite parties shall pay the proportionate amount of Rs.24,300/- to the 13 complainants out of the 15 participants in the tour package and the other 2 having not been contestants. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the amounts proportionately as per Ext.A3 to A6 in Indian currency with interest 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.20,000/- each to the complainants for the unnecessary mental agony which could have been avoided. The Forum below also directed that the above said order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest@ 12% p.a till payment.

3.   The complainants along with other players from various parts of India traveled to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to participate in the 14^th World Vetarans Table Tennis championships held from 25^th to 30^th May 2008. The 4^th opposite party provided the complainants with a quotation cum-itinerary for a five night six days Europian tour during on their return from Brazilie from 31.05.2008 onwards at a cost of Rs.50,500/- each equated to 800 Euro. The 1^st itinerary was modified on 01.06.2008 by the 4^th opposite party. The complainants paid the tour cost in advance.

4.   The complainants alleged following allegations against the opposite parties.

a.   The opposite parties have collected an amount of Rs.24,300/- in excess of the agreed amount of Rs.7,57,500/-.

b.   Nobody was there at the ParisInternational Airportto receive the complainants. The complainants had to suffer bitter experiences at the hands of the driver of the coach and staffs of the hotel.

c.   The complainants had to purchase tickets for SeineRiverboat ride on their own.

d.   The complainants purchased tickets to visit EiffelTower.

e.   The driver did not take the complainants to the restaurant for the paid dinner. They had to pay for the same on their own.

f.    The complainants had to hire taxi to visit Amsterdam.

g.   The stop-over at Brussels had to be cancelled.

h.   On several occasions the complainants were detained from checking out by the hotel management for want of settling of bills.

i.    Many sight seeing trips, dinner etc. were missed due to lack of proper arrangements by the opposite parties.

5.   On account of the breach of contract and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; the complainants suffered a consolidated liquidated damages of Rs.2,50,000/ and unliquidated damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The opposite parties are liable to pay the above amounts to the complainants. Hence this complaint.

6.   The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed their written version, and they contended that the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties are employees under the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The tour programme was arranged by World Avenues Travel Services, 60, Crawford Street, London. The complainants booked the programme through the opposite parties. The opposite parties received 800 Euro

(Rs.50,500/-) per head totaling Rs.7,57,500/- from the complainants. The opposite parties paid Euro 10000 on 22.05.2008 and Euro 1645 on 27.06.2008 to World Avenues towards the service charges for the tour. The opposite parties are entitled to get the balance sum of Rs.34,360/- from the complainants. At the instance of the complainants the opposite parties booked the ticket for the complainants. Out of the booking charges of Rs.47,42,361/- the complainants have paid only Rs.46,69,961/-. The balance amount of Rs.72,400/- is due from the complainants. On 31.05.2008 the Air India flight carrying the complainants landed at Paris terminal 2C only at 18.20 hours, late by 3 hours. The coach to carry the complainants had reached at the AirPortone hour before the expected arrival time and waited till 19.20 hours in the parking area and took the complainants to the hotel. Though the driver was already to take the complainants to the restaurant for the arranged driver, the complainants refused the same for their own reasons. On the next day 01.06.2008 the driver took the complainants to the city tour exactly by 10.am as scheduled. Even though the driver was ready to pay for the tour, the complainants refused the same and made payments directly. Again the complainants opted to purchase tickets for the visit EiffelTower. As directed by the complainants only they were taken back to hotel. Later the 1^st complainant called on the 1^st opposite party and required to change the driver. The World Avenue assured and agreed to change the driver on 03.06.2008 since they could not change the driver on Saturday and Sunday being holidays. On 02.06.2008 the complainants were not ready to travel in the coach provided by the opposite parties to go to Amesterdam they decided to go on their own for reasons thereon. The World Avenue changed the driver for the further trip and subsequent itinerary on 03.06.2008, 04.06.2008 went smoothly. All the hotel bills were paid well in time and there was no occasion to detain the complainants at the hotel. This complaint is intended to evade the payment of the amount due to the opposite parties and the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7.   Apart from the contention of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties stated in their version that Air India and World Avenues are necessary parties to the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. The 3^rd opposite party did not response to the Forum below after obtaining the notice from the Forum.

8.   The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and marked

Exts. A1 to A9. The DWs 1 and 2 were examined for the opposite parties and marked Exts. B1 to B7. Witness DW3 was examined as a witness of the opposite party. Both sides filed argument notes.

9.   The Forum below raised 3 points for consideration in the complaint they are;

1.Whether the complaint is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties?

2.Whether the complainants are entitled to get liquidated damages of Rs.2.5lakhs from the opposite parties?

3.Whether the complainants are entitled to get unliquidated damages of Rs.1lakhs each from the opposite parties?

10.  The Forum below discussed the point No.1 in detail. The Forum Below did not accept the contention of the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties that the tour programme was arranged by World Avenues Travel Services. However in none of the documents or in their communications they have not stated the same. The opposite parties gave an impression to the complainants that they are conducting the tour programme on their own. Moreover the privity of contract is in between the complainants and the opposite parties. So the above contention of the opposite parties goes. Again the opposite parties maintain that since the inconvenience if any caused to the complainants is solely due to the late arrival of the flight operated by Air India. The allegations and averments in the complaint go to show that the grievances of the complainants are against the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties not for the delay in their arrival in Parison evidence uncontroverted. So this contention as well as unsustainable. However the maintainability of the complaint in this Forum is sustained. The Forum below found that the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service.

11.  Points 2 and 3 answered by the Forum below that the 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 speaks for; the other 12 complainants deposed in a tune with the averments in the complaint. The 4^th and 5^th opposite parties who were examined as DWs1 and 2 fully supported the case of the opposite parties DW3 is a person who accompanied the complainants from India to Brazil and from Brazil to Paris. Even according to him he was ousted from the tour party for reasons best known to the parties. According to the complainants it was due to the fault of himself however DW3 claims otherwise. Since he had opted to quit the company of the complainants from the airport itself.

12.  The Forum below also discussed the Ext.A1 tour schedule given by the opposite parties to the complainants in detail. The complainants other grievances that the opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.24,300/- in excess of the agreement cost for the tour package. Ext. A2 is Fax and hotel description

dated: 22.05.2008 goes to show that the opposite parties have accepted a total amount of Rs.7,81,800/- from the complainants. Admittedly the above amount was for 15 persons. The opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.24,300/- totaling from the opposite parties in excess. The complainants are entitled to get refund of the same.

13.  It is also admitted that the flight was delayed by 3 hrs. Naturally the driver had to park the vehicle in the parking area and there was some delay in picking up the complainants. For the same reasons the same is redressed by itself. The complainants took another contention that the staffs of the hotel did not even care to take the luggage of the complainants. The opposite parties did not controvert the same. The above conduct on the part of the hotel amounts to serious deficiency in service especially since the complainants are from foreign country and in one they have been denied sufficient service. As per Ext.A2 itinerary the opposite parties are to meet the expenses of the complainants during the tour for which they have already paid. The opposite parties contended that though the driver agreed to purchase the tickets the complainants refused to accept the offer. It cant sustain such a contention especially when the tour package was a pre-paid one. Ext. A3 series goes to show that the complainants had to expend a sum of 156 Euros for ticket to visit Eiffel Tower, 56 Euros for Seine river cruise and 180 Euros for dinner on 31.05.2008 and 63 Euros on 01.06.2008 respectively. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties from Ext.A2 itinerary. The opposite parties are liable to refund the amount as per Ext.A3 series to the complainants.

14.  The Forum below considered the evidence in toto and found that the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get their grievance redressed in a foreign land which evidently goes to show that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which invariably calls for compensation as prayed for The Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held this settled position in Cox and Kinds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Col. S.P. Putchala and another (IV 2010 CPJ 63 (NC). As per this decision the members of the tourist group are entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service on behalf of the tour operators those who committed deficiency in service at abroad.

15.  The opposite parties contention is nothing but they have duly paid the amount collected by the complainants to World Avenue tour service; as per Exts. B1 to B3, B5 and B6 to meet the expenses for the tour programme. It is open to the opposite parties to claim refund of the amount for the unavailed services as claimed out of the amounts expended by the complainants from their principal World Avenues especially for the 4^th opposite party who was examined as DW1 deposed that they are the agents of World Avenue Tour Service.

16.  In the result, the Forum below allowed the complaint and passed the above mentioned order.

17.  On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing; both the counsel for the appellant and respondents are present and they argued their own cases vehemently before this commission. The counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the basis of the appeal memorandum that the Forum below did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and strict provisions of the evidence and law without analysis and discussed the evidence adduced by both sides. The Forum below taken a blind view and passed the impugned order. He submitted that the order passed by the Forum below is not legally sustainable and not in accordance with the law. He prays to allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

18.  On other side, the counsel for the respondents/complainants argued vehemently that the Forum below has fully appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides and discussed each and every points in detail and passed the order in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. It is legally sustainable and acceptable. The appeal prefers by the appellant from this order is nothing but an experimental. He prays to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the order passed by the Forum below. The senior designated counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants argued that the Forum below ought to have found that the tour programme was arranged by M/s World Avenues Tour Service, London. When in Exts. B1 and B2 the hotel vouchers it is specifically stated that the tour programme is arranged by M/s World Avenues, the District Forum went wrong in stating that none of the documents or communication it is stated about M/s. World Avenues. That apart Ext.B5 and B6 shows that the opposite parties had paid a sum of Rs.7,91,860/- to M/s. World Avenues towards service charge for the tour. In Ext.A1 tour itinerary produced by the complainants also it was specifically stated the address of the person for contact. The complainants were well aware of the fact that the tour programme was arranged by M/s. World Avenues and M/s. Benzy Holidays booked the tour on their behalf. The District Forum failed to go through Ext.A1,B1, B2,B5 and B6. The District Forum failed to appreciate the documents produced by the complainants themselves and those produced by the opposite parties. The finding of the District Forum is perverse and against the documents produced and liable to be set aside by this Honble Commission. It is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence produced by the complainant that they paid Rs.7,91,860/-. In the complaint itself it is stated that the complainants paid Euro 800 each ie.@Rs.50,500/-which was the exchange rate for Euro at that time towards the cost of the tour. The complainant paid only Rs.7,57,500/-. When there is no evidence for payment of any amount over and above Rs.7,57,500/- the District Forum grossly went wrong in directing the opposite party to pay the proportionate amount of Rs.24,300/- to the 13 complainants. The finding in this respect also is completely perverse.

19.  It is also submitted the counsel for the appellant that the complaint itself that the Aircraft landed very late at ParisAirportterminal. Since the flight was late the driver could not park the coach at the terminal. He was permitted to park only at the 8^th bay. The driver of the coach met the complainants as soon as they came out of the terminal. The driver of the coach requested the complainants to board the coach at the parking bay. Then the 1^st complainant very badly abused the coach driver. When DW3 expressed his dissent over the behavior of PW1 towards the driver, PW1 quarreled with DW3 which went to the extent of expelling him from the tour programme, thereby he lost Rs.50,500/- which he paid for the Europe for Tour along with others. This fact is deposed in detail by DW3. Having misbehaved with the driver and quarreled with him, PW1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own mistake in causing inconveniences in the tour. The District Forum failed to analyze the evidence in this respect in proper perspective. The evidence of DW3 is totally omitted from consideration and thereby the impugned order lack fairness in action. The finding of the District Forum that the opposite parties did not controvert the contention that the staff of the hotel did not even care to take the luggage of the complainants and the said conduct on the part of the hotel amounts serious deficiency in service is incorrect. The opposite parties denied the said contention and there is absolutely no evidence regarding the said contention that the staff of the hotel did not even care to take the luggage of the complainants. The impugned order is not based on evidence and it is perverse. The Forum ought not have relied on the interested and solitary evidence of PW1, the 1^st complainant and found that there is deficiency in service. The District Forum should have assessed the evidence of PW1 by his demeanor and conduct. The PW1 has specifically deposed that he has not been authorized by other complainants to prosecute the case. None of the other complainants has supported the case of PW1. Absolutely there is no reason or explanation as to their absence and non examination. Therefore the District Forum ought to have found that the complaint is handy work of PW1, the 1^st complainant and other complainants are not aggrieved or interested in the matter and ought to have dismissed the complaint. The District Forum has completely ignored the character and conduct of the PW1 deposed by DW3 who attended the Rio de Janeiro meet and was a member of the European tour group. The finding of the District Forum is absolutely illegal, unsustainable and therefore liable to be interfered with by this Honble State Commission. It also submitted that the Forum ought to have found that Air India is a necessary party to the proceedings since unduly delayed arrival of the Air craft at Paris Terminal on 31.05.2008 is the root cause of the confusion. The District Forum also ought to have found that M/s. World Avenue Travel Services is a necessary part to the proceedings since the opposite party M/s.Benzy Holidays has acted only as their agent. The compensation amount is awarded without any basis. At any rate the amount awarded is highly excessive and exorbitant. Thereafter he prayed to interfere the order passed by the Forum below and also to set aside the impugned order.

20.  The counsel for the respondents/complainants argued that the evidentiary value of the PW1 is strictly admissible as per the provisions of the evidence Act. He submitted that as per the Consumer Protection act it need not be needed elaborated and detailed evidence each and every complainants separately and need not adduce evidence by each and every complainants in a single cause of action. He submitted that the PW1 is the 1^st complainant who is legally competent and also have the legal capacity to depose against the opposite parties by himself and to behalf of other complainants. There is no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the 1^st complainant it is quite legal and the evidence of the PW1 is admissible. He submitted that the complainants are having dealing with this opposite parties alone they paid the entire amount of them for a European tour. He submitted that the opposite parties did not ask to contact with World Avenue Tour Service at Landon. According to the complainants they are only strangers. The opposite parties are acting as agents of the World Avenue Tour Service at London. The opposite parties offered a package tour at European with a specific terms and conditions regarding the accommodation, sight seen etc. It was printed schedule and handed over to the complainants at the time of booking the tour package by the opposite parties. In this document nowhere stated that he has no direct or indirect dealing

with the World Avenues Tour Service at London. In the basis of this settled position of law; if any deficiency committed by the World Avenue Tour Service at London in the course of the package tour to the complainant, the opposite parties are alone legally liable for such deficiency in service. Another important submission of the opposite parties that PW1 spoken all the matters and bitter experience and problems in detail and the payment of excess amount done by the complainants to the opposite parties is proved and it is liable to be refunded. Another contention during the argument that it cannot be relied the evidence of the DW3 the co-passenger who accompanied with the complainants in the tour programme. His evidence is baseless and biased. He turned hostile by pressurize or the abetment of the opposite parties. After words the evidence of the DW3 deposed that he quit the package tour in initial stage it is an admitted fact. In the circumstance, he cannot be spoken anything about after incidents in the package tour. The PW1 spoken about the payment of money from the pocket of the complainants to take taxi, entrusted fee for said seeing arrangements etc. He argued that the package tour was arranged by the travel agency without any proper guide or any competent person to lead the party to the various parts of the international heritage city in Paris. His main complaint regarding the deficiency of the tour operators is that even they spent a very huge money for this package tour they did not visit the IFFEL Tower; if anybody will visit in Paris the Iffel Tower is most attractive site not only in Paris but also in the World. This programme scheduled by the opposite parties in package tour programme they are having bitter experience in the hotel also. The complainants alleged that the driver of the coach was not present at the arrival launch of the airport. He parked the coach far away from the arrival launch. The behavior of the driver was arrogant. He concluded his argument that the complainant prepared for a Package World Avenue only for the comfortable and enjoying trip. But the complainants suffered utmost tension and mental agony after they paid huge money for this package tour. He submitted that the order passed by the Forum is absolutely accordance with the provisions of law and evidence it is legally sustainable.

21.  We this commission heard in detail both counsels and perused the entire evidence in detail. It is seeing that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainants jointly but DW1 alone spoken about the deficiency in service and refund of the amount etc in detail on behalf of the other complainants. Here the question raised that on what authority as per law; the DW1 deposed on behalf of other complainants? In the deposition of PW1 during the time of the cross examination spoken that; “Language”  Whether the version of the DW3 is relayable or not? this is the attitude of the fellow passengers of the tour. The DW3 raised very serious allegations against the DW1. In the circumstance, how the depositions of the PW1 is sole admissible even though there where ever somany complaints which raised by him both in the complaint and his deposition. None of the complainants except PW1, the 1^st complainant, others kept mum regarding the allegation of the complaint during the trial of the case before the Forum below. We are also not seeing any steps taken on the part of the complainant to examine any other complainants before the Forum below to corroborate the evidence of the PW1. It is the reason that the parliament added section 12 (c) in the enactment named as the Consumer Protection Act. As per the Section 12 (c) following 4 categories are competent consumers to file the complaint before CDRF and CDRC and NCDRC. They are:

a.The consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered for such service provided or agreed to be provided.

b.Any recognized Consumer Association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provider or agreed to be provided for a such a member of association or not.

c.One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf, or for the benefit of our consumers so interested.

d.The Central Government or State Government, as the case may be either in individual capacity or as a representation of the interest of the consumers in general.

22.  This complaint coming under the purview of Sec. 12 (c). But it is very interesting that either the parties or the Forum below did not consider the statutory mandatem about the previous sanction of the District Forum for institute this complaint. We are not seeing anywhere either in the complaint or proof evidence, or in deposition any pleading or prayer or statement for the permission of the Forum below to institute this complaint. How this complaint is instituted and numbered without complying the statutory requirements. In this point, there is a decision in a reported case from the Tamil Nadu State Commission CPJ 74 (SCRTC Tamil Nadu the order of 2005). In this decision it is strictly saying that the previous sanction of the Forum below is highly legislatively necessary to file and proceed the complaint under Sec 12 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. In a similar case the Tamil Nadu State Commission set aside the order passed by the Forum below. The object of this provision added in the Consumer Protection Act (amendment act 03) is to filtrate the genuine complainants from the frivalous and vexatious complainants. In this case, the complainants except PW1 had spoken anything about the incidents. It is not seeing anywhere that any authorization or power of attorney given to the 1^st complainant to spoke in the box on behalf of the other complainants. Here the evidence of DW3 is relevant. We cannot take in toto that the other complainants are having the very same grievances and reliefs as mentioned in the complaint. It is an important question of law raised in this case.

23.  We are seeing that the evidence of PW1 during the cross examination, admitted that he shown the document No.5 and 6 at the 1^st time. When he was standing in the witness box.

“ document No.4 shown to the witness” Q. $8a Dy. Commissioner of Customs in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India but his deposition is not at all up to that level. It cannot be acceptable fully as per the Evidence Act. Both the complainants and the opposite parties admitted that the Air India Flight was delayed from scheduled time, arrival at ParisAirport. The opposite parties are having a strong case that the World Avenue Tour Service or Air India are necessary parties in this case. It was content by the opposite parties in the version filed by them. The complainants didnt take any attempt to implead Air India as a party or at least both parties can be cited Air India as a witness to prove that their flight was delayed and due to that reason the entire deficiency was occurred. But this argument from the part of the appellants is not legally sustainable. The complainants are having only dealings with the opposite parties in the above said world package tour. There is no office within the country of India established by the World Avenue Tour Service. The opposite parties in their version did not given even the address of the agency office of the above said travel company and Air India. For the delay of the flight; the complainants concern they are not having any direct deal within the Air India and they did not aware any of the business of the Air India. In the circumstance, implead World Tour Service and Air Indiais not in necessary. Very same time in the absence of any office of the World Avenue Tour Service in India; the opposite parties acted as an agent on behalf of this company. The opposite parties collected the amount from the complainants only for the flight, ticket booking but also for the entire expense of the tour package. They offered the disputed tour package of them. In the circumstance, the opposite parties are liable for any deficiency in service which suffered by the members of the tour package at Paris. Their contention that they only booked the flight tickets to the complainants is untrue and not legally sustainable. Suppose they having a such contention for what purpose they interfere in change the driver of the coach and monitet the complaints raised by the complainants at Paris. The opposite parties cannot be escaped from the legal liability of the deficiency if any incidented to the members of the tour package at Paris. Those who arranged by them by acceptance of the consolidated amount for such purpose but in this case the complainants did not compel to return from the arrival point at Paris due to the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties. They have no case that they suffered more but even they are managed to complete their package tour at Paris. But individually, from the evidence of the PW1 it cannot be proved such a deficiency of service in detail by his oral or documentary evidence. He failed to establish the deficiency in service in this case. But the appellants/opposite parties are also admitted certain amount of deficiency in service during the package tour at Paristhat the complainants those who were suffered. But the defense that for such a deficiency supposes suffered complainants at Paristhe World Avenue Tour Service is liable for that deficiency and the appellants/opposite parties are not liable; it is the argument of the appellants. This is not legally sustainable as per the ever so many decisions of the Apex Court in National Commission. This is a settled position of law. The opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service suffered by the DW1. Even though, it was partially admitted by the appellants/opposite parties including the changing the driver of the coach etc. but the documents produced and marked by the 1^st opposite party is not sufficient to prove that they paid excess amount to the opposite parties and they are liable to get back such an amount. This fact is not proved beyond the shadow of doubt before the Forum below. The package tours are low cost, tour arrangements which launched by the travel companies through out the world. It cannot be insisted the facilities as equal to the personal arrangements of tour programmes. People prefer this package tour programmes is that they can travel and enjoy the trips on a low cost compare to the personal arrangement tours. But the very same time, opposite parties are bound to provide the facilities they already offered to the tourists then after the tour operators received the money from them. But in this case, the complainants failed to prove, that what amount of deficiency in service those who suffered from the part of the particular travel agency like World Avenue Tour Service at London. It is difficult to award a quantum of amount of compensation as prayed by the complainants in their complaint.

24.  We considered and discussed all the points of the appeal on the basis of the fact and circumstance and evidence, adduced by both sides before the Forum below and we are seeing that there is an apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. This impugned order passed by the Forum is not legally sustainable. It is passed not accordance with the strict provisions of law and evidence. The Forum below even failed to admit the complaint without granting sanction under section 12 C of the Consumer Protection Act. It is a mandatory provision as per the Act. Everybody is bound to obey the mandatory provisions of the enactments. Recently, Hon. Supreme Court held this position of law in “Raveev Hithendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kasinath Karekar and Another. (CA No.3407/2007 decided on 19.8.2011). This is the decision of the Five Judges Bench of the Hon. Supreme Court. In this case we are seeing that the complainant is not maintainable accordance with and section 12 C of the Consumer Protection Act. In the absence of the previous sanction of the Forum to institute, this complaint before the Forum below is illegal. But we are seeing that the 1^st complainant (PW1) is liable to get compensation under the head of deficiency in service committed by the appellants/opposite parties. Even the 1^st complainant also failed to prove each and every detail regarding the deficiency which alleged to be suffered by him from the part of the opposite parties. But also in the version the opposite parties admitted that certain deficiency were including the change of the driver of the coach etc but they are not liable from particular at London, World Avenue Travel Service is liable. The opposite parties admitted partially that certain negotiation going on. It also seen from the evidence that the opposite parties made attempts to rectify the problems suffered by the complainants at London. Suppose they are mere ticket booking agency why they did this interference at London? It is an admitted fact that they are not only to ticket booking agency but also part and parcel of the World Avenue Travel Service. It is not legally sustainable. In the circumstance, we set aside the illegal and irregular order passed by the Forum below. We decided to confirm the grievance of the 1^st complainant (PW1) alone who is liable to get some amount of the compensation under the head of the deficiency in service. He didnt prove the sufficient quantum of deficiency he sustained.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the 1^st complainant alone under the head of the deficiency in service. The above said order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a till payment.

The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly. We do so.