Judgment:
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member, J.
The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order no. 29 dt. 10.10.12 of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, passed in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 200/2009, dismissing the Complaint. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, which are relevant and pertinent for adjudication of the case, are set out hereinafter. The Appellant/Complainant, accompanied by other 10 fellow travellers including two children, booked four rooms with UBI Gariahat Branch Employees Holiday Home and Welfare Society at their Rajgir Holiday Home, Keshabasram by name, for the period from 24.3.2008 to 26.12.2008 against charges of ` 3,000/-. After reaching the said Holiday Home on 24.12.2008 the Complainant found the condition of the Holiday Home deplorable, and met with lack of services like absence of light in the staircase, big openings on the door panels, leakage of water from upper floor in the bathroom accompanied by unhygienic condition etc. Despite all these inconveniences the Complainant along with group stayed there for the entire period of booking. About six months after returning from the said Holiday Home at Rajgir the Complainant wrote to the Secretary of the concerned Holiday Home and Welfare Society about the inconveniences the Complainant and his other companions experienced at the Holiday Home at Rajgir, and also demanded for refund of the money paid by the Complainant, but to no effect. On the above facts the Ld. District Forum below passed the impugned order in the manner mentioned hereinbefore. Dissatisfied with the order so passed by the Ld. District Forum below the Appellant/Complainant is before this Commission.
It is submitted by the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant that as the Booking Slip dated 22.10.2008 (which is not available on records) was in the name of the Appellant/Complainant alone, so he is eligible for filing the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum without authorization by the other accompanying co-travellers, the latter being the beneficiaries only. The Ld. Advocates further submit that non-entry of any deficiency in service in the Visitors Book at the Guest House in question, which could not be made because of apprehension of the ill-treatment by the caretaking person of the Guest House, should not deprive him of the remedies for deficiency in service before the Consumer Fora. So, the order of the Ld. District Forum ought to be set aside “ the Ld. Advocates conclude.
Although none appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Ops before this Commission, the Written Version as filed by the Ops before the Ld. District Forum, as available on records, reveals that the Respondents/Ops raised before the Ld. District Forum objection to the maintainability of the Complaint on the grounds that the Complainant representing a group of 11 beneficiaries accompanying filed the Complaint without any authorization from the other members of the group or without any prior permission from the Ld. District Forum. It was further stated in the said Written Version by the Ops that in so far as the alleged deficiencies in service are concerned, as there were no contractual terms to that effect between the Complainant and the Ops, no question of deficiencies in service on the part of the Ops arose.
We have heard the submission of the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant/Complainant and perused the materials on records including the Written Version by the Ops filed before the Ld. District Forum and the impugned order.
The admitted position of the Appellant/Complainant is that he booked the Holiday Home in question for himself and also on behalf of other 10 fellow travellers, and that the Appellant/Complainant filed the Complaint before the Forum below more in a representative capacity than in an individual capacity, but without any authorization from the other members of the group accompanying. It is also not evident from the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum that prior permission of the Ld. District Forum, as required under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was secured, implying thereby that no prior permission, as required by law in question, was secured. The requirement of prior permission from the Ld. District Forum does not except the cases filed on behalf of even the beneficiaries, if the number of such beneficiary is more than one.
In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum below rightly dismissed the Complaint, it being not in compliance with the requirement of legal provision U/S 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, it being bereft of merits and hence, the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum stands affirmed. No order as to costs.