KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.694/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 22.6.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Manager, : APPELLANTS Lakshmi Narayana Travels, Valavanad, Kalavoor.P.O., PIN – 688 522. 2. Proprietor, Lakshmi Narayana Travels, Valavanad, Kalavoor.P.O., PIN – 688 522. (By Adv.R.Sankaranarayana Iyer) Vs. Sri.G.Ajikumar, : RESPONDENT Kalappurackal, Mararikulam North.P.O., Alappuzha. (By Adv.Praveen.P.Kumar) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.6.05 of CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.No.A.289/02. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant as opposite party claiming Rs.4500/- towards hire charges for the vehicle additionally called for along with a compensation of Rs.25000/- for the mental agony and inconveniences caused to him with cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that for the conveyance of the invitees to attend the marriage of his brother he booked 2 buses. The bus belonged to the opposite party was booked on 24.6.02 by paying an advance amount of Rs.500/- and the agreed total fare was Rs.3500/-. As per the terms and conditions of contract the bus belonging to the opposite party should operate two trips. The first trip started at 9.15AM and the complainant directed drivers of the buses to come back at the earliest, in order to operate the 2nd trip. But the opposite party’s bus did not come back. The complainant had to make alternate arrangements and accordingly 3 taxies were arranged for the conveyance of the invitees. Many of the invitees including the complainant his father and brother could not reach the place of marriage. Thus the complainant and his family had to suffer inconvenience, monitory loss and mental agony. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum claiming a sum of Rs.30,000/- under various heads. 3. The opposite party filed version and contended that as per the agreement his bus reached the complainant’s house at 7.45PM and another bus booked by the complainant reached at 8.30AM. Instead of operating his bus first, the complainant operated the other bus first and the opposite party’s bus started only at 9.30AM. The seating capacity of the bus was 49 and they have to carry 80 passengers and there remained about 14 invitees when they left. Complainant’s relatives informed the driver that he need not come back for the 2nd trip as there were 6 more cars to carry the remaining invitees. After the marriage the opposite party conducted return trip and at the time of demanding for the balance amount the complainant sent back the driver and bus saying that they have to think it over. On 20.9.2002 the opposite party’s brother and a relative went to the residence of the complainant and asked for the balance amount and then the complainant and his brother behaved improperly and consequently the opposite party filed a petition before the police station and the same is pending now. According to the opposite party the complainant had filed this complaint with an intention to escape from paying the balance amount which is legally entitled to him. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service he prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4, RW1; Exts. A1 to A5. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the bus of the opposite party had reached the complainant’s house at 7.45AM itself and started journey at 9.30.AM only and there was a specific instruction from the complainant that the bus need not come back for the 2nd trip. He argued for the position that the Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant had paid only the advance amount of Rs.500/- and the balance amount was not paid and only when the balance was asked for, the complainant had raised the question of the 2nd trip. More over the opposite party is eligible for payment for the 1st trip already availed by the complainant and that the receipts for the engagement of the taxies were procured only at a later stage and hence that ought to have been discarded. He further submitted that the complainant had not endured any mental agony or sufferings as all the remaining invitees could reach the function. Hence compensation need not have been awarded. Thus he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records we find that the complainant has made arrangements with the opposite party for getting the conveyance for the marriage of complainant’s brother and that Rs.500/- was given as advance. It is also found that the opposite party had performed only one trip and that it was for the 2nd trip also that a sum of Rs.3500/- was agreed to be given as total fare for the 2 trips. It is also observed that opposite party had not performed the 2nd trip. The appellant argued that the complainant’s relatives directed the driver that he need not come for the 2nd trip. But no evidence is forthcoming from the side of the opposite party to prove this. But the complainant has adduced evidence to show that he had arranged taxies for conveying the invitees. The Forum below had directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4500/- being the taxi charges and other unexcepted expenses. We find that the complainant had not paid any amount other than Rs.500/- being the advance. Hence it is our view that the complainant ought to have given Rs.1750/- for one trip as it is admitted that the total fare for two trips is Rs.3500/-. If that be so the opposite party is entitled to get Rs.1250/_(Rs.1750-500/-) more from the complainant. The Forum omitted to consider this fact and we are of the opinion that the opposite party need pay only Rs.3250/- only (pay only opposite pRs.1750-500/-) more from the complainant. The Forum is omitted to consider this fact and we of t Rs.4500/- - 1250/-) with 6% interest from the date of order of the Forum below. As interest is awarded we do not think that the opposite party need pay any compensation over and above the payment of interest. In such a circumstance the direction of the Forum below to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3250/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of order of the Forum below till the date of payment. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER ps | 
