1

Team
TeamCode:
Code:76
17676
UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2022

IN THE HON’BLE SCINDIA DISTRICT DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SECOND INNINGS OLD AGE CHARITABLE TRUST

(COMPLAINANT)

V.

TRIP MAKERS Pvt. Ltd.

(RESPONDENT)

COMPLAINT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 17 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 2

Table of Contents

Index of Authorities 3

• Case Law 3

• Books 3

• Websites 3

• Statutes 3

Statement of Jurisdiction 4

Statement of Facts 5

Summary of Arguments 6-7

Arguments Advanced 8-12

Issue-I: Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust is 8-10

maintainable or not?

Issue-II: Whether the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/- per 10-11

person for VIP entry amounts to unfair trade practices?

Issue-III: Whether the act of Trip Makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a 11-12

subsidiary hotel rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the

partying and loud music makes the Trip Makers liable for deficiency in service?

Prayer 13

List of Annexures 14-15

• Annexure 1 15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW:

1. Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors. SC 2017

BOOKS:

1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Bare Act

2. Consumer Protection Act, written by S.C Tripathi

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.manupatrafast.com

2. http://www.indiankanoon.com

3. http://www.scconline.com

STATUTES:

1. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under

Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Section 17:

A complaint relating to violation of consumer rights or unfair trade practices or false or

misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of consumers as a class, may

be forwarded either in writing or in electronic mode, to any one of the authorities, namely,

the District Collector or the Commissioner of regional office or the Central Authority.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 01.12.2021 Trip Maker Pvt. Ltd. Officially launched a package for Parathnath Yatra.

There was a cap of 30 tourists. In 15 days i.e., by 15.1.2021 the entire package was

booked by second innings charitable trust and all payments were made in advance.

2. On 19.01.2022, the trust received a mail by Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. Stating that the District

police had revised the VIP fares from INR 500 to 1500. They demanded 50% money i.e.

INR 500 and decided to bear 50% amount. Charitable Trust paid the money as directed

by the agency. They had no other option because the last date to cancel for full refund

was on 17.01.2022.

3. The trip commenced on 01.02.2022. The Pilgrims expected that they would be taken to

the Le Maddison, as per the advertisement, but were taken to Blu Maddison.

4. In the hotel, Pilgrims who expected a calm stay, experienced loud noises of amplifiers

and dancing till midnight for two days during their stay at the hotel because the hotel had

started organizing parties and reception in their premises.

5. On complaining to the hotel manager, the manager informed that after two years of

lockdowns and curfews due to Covid -19, the hotel had started organizing parties in its

premises. The hotel had also informed same to the Trip Makers Agency.

6. On return, the charitable trust filed the case against the trip makers Pvt. Ltd. in this

regard. They demanded a compensation of INR 5,00,000 for the deficiency in service by

the Trip Makers Agency and also sum of INR 15000 taken extra for VIP entry charges.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 6

Summary of Arguments

ISSUE I: Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust is

maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Consumer Commission that the complaint filed by

the Charitable Trust is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission. This is a

Charitable Trust which does not come under the definition of consumer. Therefore, their

complaint is not valid in this court and the opposite party should try in another court.

ISSUE II: Whether the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person

for VIP entry amounts to unfair trade practices?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Consumer Commission that charging an additional

INR 500/- per person for VIP entry did not amount to unfair trade practices as the

government authorities/District polic had revised the fares and had increased price from INR

500 to 1500. The Trip Makers Agency should have taken the full charges i.e. INR 100/- but

instead they only asked for INR 500/- for the trip bearing 50% amount incurring losses.

ISSUE III: Whether the act of Trip Makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a

subsidiary hotel rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the partying

and loud music makes the Trip Makers liable for deficiency in service?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Consumer Commission that the Trip Makers are

not liable for deficiency of service. Due to large number of pilgrims for Prathnath Yatra, the

hotels witnessed large number of tourists. The Trip Makers in their package that was given to

the opposite party mentioned stay at Maddison hotels. Blu Maddison was also a hotel under

Maddison Group. It had every facility that was promised in the advertisement. Also, Trip

Makers were not aware of parties being conducted in the premises of the hotel. The Trip

Makers were just informed casually that the hotels had started organizing parties after the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 7

lockdown due to losses in this period. These are clearly false allegation to recover money

after enjoying a great trip.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:

Whether the complaint filed by Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust is

maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission that the Second Innings

Old Age Charitable Trust is a trust and its complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble

Commission. The Trust does not come in the category of consumer as trust does not come in

the definition of a person.1

According to Section 2(5),

"complainant" means—

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being

in force; or

(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or

(iv) the Central Authority; or

(v) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same

interest; or

(vi) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative; or

(vii) in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian;

It is quite clear from the above definition of a complainant that it does not include a Trust.

1. Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors. SC 2017

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 9

A consumer has been defined in Section 2 () of the Act as follows: -

"consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been

paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred

payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for

consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of

deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not

include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii)

hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly

paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any

beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for

consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of

deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned

person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial

purpose.

According to Section 2(31),

"person" includes—

(i) an individual;

(ii) a firm whether registered or not;

(iii) a Hindu undivided family;

(iv) a co-operative society;

(v) an association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration

Act, 1860 or not; (vi) any corporation, company or a body of individuals whether

incorporated or not;

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 10

On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it is clear that a Trust is

not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and

cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.

Therefore, the complaint filed by the Charitable Trust is not maintainable before this

commission.

ISSUE 2:

Whether the act of Trip Makers charging an additional INR 500/- per person for VIP

entry amounts to unfair trade practices?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission that it is clear from the

facts that taking INR 500/- extra was not an unfair trade practice.

It is clearly mentioned in the package of Prathnath Yatra given by Trip Makers, (Annexure

A-1) according to its point (e), the travel agency had the right to make necessary changes as

per the changes in government rules and regulations. The increase of fare for VIP entry was

done by the District Police which also comes under Government Authority. So, it was

completely correct as the Trip Agency had specified this prior to the trip in its package

(Annexure A-1).

Also, the Trip Makers are being accused by the opposite parties that they did not disclose the

information regarding increase in fares for VIP entry on the same day of official

announcement i.e., 16.01.2022 which is completely false. The Trip Makers Pvt. Ltd. is an

agency located in Bindore city in Central Pradesh. They have sources all over the country

2. Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors. SC 2017

that provide them necessary information about the latest prices and hotels at a particular

place. So, it requires time for necessary information to reach the Agency, after which the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 11

agency itself verifies the information by contacting the concerned authorities as well as

through other sources. After full verification, it informs its customers about the changes. This

process was also followed in the case of the Charitable Trust and they were informed on

19.01.2022. It is clear from abovesaid information that the Trip Makers are falsely accused

and they do not amount to unfair trade practice.

ISSUE 3:

Whether the act of Trip Makers to provide pilgrims accommodation in a subsidiary

hotel rather than a 3-star hotel and disturbance caused due to the partying and loud

music makes the Trip Makers liable for deficiency in service?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission that the Trip makers are

not liable for deficiency in service. In the package (Annexure A-1) given to the opposite

party, it was nowhere mentioned that the party will be taken to Le Maddison. It was written

Maddison hotel on the package and the tourists were taken to Blu Maddison. The Trip

Makers tried hrd so that the tourists can get to stay at Le Maddison but because a large

number of pilgrims visited for Prathnath Yatra, it was difficult to book the same hotel. Also,

every service promised like breakfast and dinner, clean rooms, etc were provided to the

tourists.

After the lockdown ended, the hotel authorities casually informed the Trip Makers that as

they had incurred huge losses due to Covid-19, they would now be organizing parties in their

premises. The point to note is that they had informed the Trip Makers casually. The Trip

Makers used to book the hotel rooms and if there was a party on the same day, the hotel did

not inform the agency. The Trip Makers were not aware of other things going in the premises

of the hotel. They only asked for good rooms and service for its customers. Also, making

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 12

allegations of deficiency of service for just a party that only continued till midnight clearly

shows that the opposite party is making false allegations to recover money they paid for the

trip. Most of us in today’s world sleep after midnight.

It is clear that the Charitable Trust just want their money back and do not have a strong

reason to prove deficiency of service.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 13

PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this

Hon‘ble Consumer Commission be pleased to dismiss this complaint or pass any other order

it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 14

LIST OF ANNEXURES

S. No. Particulars of Documents

A-1 PRATHNATH YATRA PACKAGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 15

Annexure 1

PRATHNATH YATRA PACKAGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT