Case nº Revision Petition Nos. 3366 and 3533 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 26, 2014 (case 1. Abhishek Sarkar, 2. Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs 1. Cox & Kings Ltd., 2. Abhishek Sarkar)
| Judge | For Appellant:Samir Kumar Majumdar, A.R. and For Respondents: A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate, Praveen Pahuja and S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocates |
| President | K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) |
| Resolution Date | August 26, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
-
Both these revision petitions arise out of the common order of State Commission; hence, decided by common judgment.
-
R.P. No. 3366 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioners/complainants and R.P. No. 3533 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in S.C. Case No. FA/787/2012-Abhishek Sarkar Vs. Cox & Kings Ltd. and Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Sarkar & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
-
Brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 1 got from his employer-HSBC a gift of holiday voucher to the tune of Rs. 92,000/- endorsed in favour of OP so as to enable complainants to enjoy tour of Malaysia. Accordingly, complainants enjoyed trip and on their return journey from Malaysia, they were kept waiting at the hotel wherefrom representative of OP was to pick up the complainants and to drop them at airport for their return journey to Kolkatta. It was further submitted that inspite of reasonable waiting as representative of OP did not turn up, complainants availed taxi for reaching airport, but as they reached late, they could not board the flight and had to purchase tickets for return journey to Kolkatta via Delhi and incurred expenses of Rs. 1,39,043/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable as per arbitration clause. It was further submitted that agent of OP did attend the hotel, but did not find complainants in lobby/room as they had left the hotel of their own for which, OP is not responsible and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 1,03,943/- and further awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. OP filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order reduced amount of Rs. 1,03,943/- to Rs. 42,050/- against which, both the parties have filed aforesaid revision petitions.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
-
Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that learned District Forum rightly awarded Rs. 1,03,943/- and learned State Commission committed error in reducing amount; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be...
To continue reading
Request your trial