Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows:  2^nd complainant is the father in law of 1^st complainant.  1^st complainant booked opposite party’s two tourist buses for the wedding of 2^nd complainant’s daughter.  The marriage is proposed to be conducted on 31.1.2010.  An agreement was also executed between the opposite party and 1^st complainant by paying ` 200 as advance.  As per agreement, opposite party has to arrange two buses for the journey of brides party on 31.1.2010 at 10.30 a.m. from Panchayatpadi junction near by complainant’s residence.  The wedding place is at Kannankodu Orthodox Church.  The charge of each bus is ` 4,500 and complainants has to pay ` 9,400 after deducting advance amount.  But opposite party failed to arrange buses as agreed and thereby breached the agreement.  Therefore, complainants could not arrange the marriage party to the wedding place in time.   So emergency arrangements were made by the complainants by hiring other vehicles, which incurred exorbitant amount.  Moreover, complainants have faced humiliation, agony and distress.  Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 40,000 from the opposite party for the expenses incurred by him for arranging other vehicles and for the compensation for his mental agony etc. 

                   3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  According to opposite party their buses were parking parallel to Pandalam-Kaipattoor Road in east west direction.  The bus parked in the front row become defective due to the air leak and break system also become jam.  The buses arranged for the marriage could not be moved due to the complaint of the bus parked in front of the other buses.  This is noticed by the staff of the vehicle at 9 a.m. only.  This mechanical defect came to the knowledge of the opposite party; he took measures to rectify it.  The other buses parked behind the said defective bus cannot be moved until the first row bus is removed.

                   4. Immediately, opposite party contacted the mechanic who came and repaired the vehicle.  Due to the Panchayat road maintenance, the buses have to deviate the normal route.  Because of the said reasons, the buses reached at the Panchayat-padi junction by 10.30 a.m.  But the complainants’ relatives quarreled with the staff of opposite party’s buses for not reaching the place at 10 a.m.  They also tried to manhandle the staff and asked the ladies entered in the buses to get down from the buses and boycotted the buses. 

                   5. According to opposite party, complainant has not hired vehicles at a higher rate for the journey of the marriage party.  There is no mental agony or distress.  Opposite party has no enimity towards the complainants.  They rectified the mechanical defect of the vehicles and reached at correct time.  The staff of opposite party not accepted the irresponsible directions of the relatives, which created enimity in the mind of the complainant.  Opposite party acted as per the terms of agreement.  Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost, as they have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant. 

                   6. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Reliefs and Costs?

          7. Evidence of the complaint consists of the deposition of PW1 based on the proof affidavit filed by the 2^nd complainant and Exts.A1 to A4.

          8. Evidence of the opposite party consists of the oral deposition of DW1 based on the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and the depositions of DW2 and DW3 and Ext.B1 series. 

          9. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, 2^nd complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the wedding invitation card.  Ext.A2 is the agreement between the complainant and opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the copy of advocate notice issued to opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the reply notice of Ext.A3.

          10. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, opposite party filed proof affidavit and produced two witnesses.  Opposite party and the witnesses were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and the documents were marked as Ext.B1 series.  Ext.B1 is the trip sheet of opposite party’s bus No.KL-3P/5868.  Ext.B1(a) is the trip sheet of opposite party’s bus No.KL-3K/7677.

          11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  Complainants’ case is that opposite party has not arranged buses as per agreement for the wedding of 2^nd complainant’s daughter, which caused mental agony, distress and loss of reputation.  Opposite party’s contention is that some mechanical defect occurred to one stage carriage bus in their parking area.  Other buses, which are in good condition parked behind the said bus in the back row could not be moved due to the parking of the defective bus.  After curing the defect, other buses were taken and two buses were send as per the agreement, but complainants’ relatives made unwarranted interference, which prevented the staff to operate the bus.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on their part. 

          12. On a perusal of Ext.A1 and A3, it is revealed that opposite party’s two vehicles were booked for the wedding journey.  According to opposite party, defect noticed in one bus parked in the front row.  So the other buses parked behind the defective bus could not be moved.  This caused some delay in reaching the destination.  But opposite party has not produced any evidence regarding the repairing of the bus.  Even though DW2, the mechanic was examined, he did not disclose the story of other buses parked behind the front. All this shows that the immovable stage of other bus is a concocted story.  As a bus operator it is the duty of opposite party to find safe parking place for operating vehicles freely without any hindrance and to inform the contingency to the persons waiting for the booked buses.

          13. If for arguments sake, if it is admitted the mechanical defect of one bus, what prevented the opposite party to inform it to the complainant at the earliest.  DW3 also admitted that they have not informed the mechanical defect to complainants.  It is evident in DW3’s deposition, which is as follows:- “hml\w km[mcW CSp¶ Øehpw, lÀPn I£nbpsS hoSpw X½n Dt±iw c­p Intem aoäÀ Zqcw hcpw.  h­n¡v XIcmdv D­mbn F¶v lÀPn I£nsb hnfn¨p ]dªnÓ. 

          14. From the overall facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record, it is seen that opposite party has not arranged vehicle as per Ext.A2 agreement for the wedding party within the specified time.  It is the boundan duty of opposite party to arrange the vehicles as per Ext.A2.  Failure to do so is not only a breach of contract but also a clear deficiency of service.  But complainants had not produced any material evidence to prove the exorbitant expenses incurred by him. Therefore, complaint is allowable in part.

          15. In the result, complaint is allowed partly, thereby opposite party is directed to pay the advance amount of Rs.200 (Rupees Two hundred only) along with ` 9,000 (Rupees Nine Thousand only) as compensation, and ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainants within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 9% interest from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the          18^th day of July, 2011.

                                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                                                      N. Premkumar.

                                                                                            (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :         Geevarghese. K.C.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Invitation Card

A2     :  Agreement dated 26.1.10 issued by the opposite party in the name 

             of the 1^st complainant

A3     :  Advocate notice dated 2.2.10 sent by the complainant to the 

              opposite party

A4     :   Reply notice dated 9.2.10 sent by the opposite party to the

              complainant.                

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1 :         Jinu. T. Varghese

DW2 :         Suresh Kumar. G

DW3 :         James. P

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1     :  Trip sheet for vehicle No. KL-3P/5868 dated 31.01.10 issued by the 

             opposite party

B1(a):   Trip sheet for vehicle No. KL-3K/7677 dated 31.01.10 issued by the 

             opposite party.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Biju John, Kollantayyathu Veedu, Naduvile Muri,

            Pandalam Thekkekkara Village.

       (2) Manager, Thyvilayil Travels, Thumpamon.

       (3) The Stock File.