JUDGMENT 11.11.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum- II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.542 of 2009 filed by complainant Chander Pal Tyagi was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and Opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant being the refund of advance charges and compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment etc. The aforementioned amounts were ordered to be paid by OPs within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which they were made liable to pay penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 21.4.2009 till actual realization. 2. In fact Appeal No.219/2010 has been filed by the complainant Chander Pal Tyagi for enhancement of compensation whereas appeal No.303/2010 has been filed by M/s Golden Travel Co.- Opposite party for setting aside the impugned order dated 7.5.2010 . Since, in both appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 4. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus ; The marriage of the son of the complainant was fixed on 07.12.2008 and the Baratis (members of marriage party) was to go to Village Ikri, District Merrut (UP). To carry the Baratis , a luxury bus was booked with OPs and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance. In fact the members of the marriage party were large in number,so the complainant required two buses and only one bus was available for that day, therefore complainant booked one bus from the OPs for taking the marriage party to Village Ikri, District Merrut (UP) and the second bus was hired from another operator. The agreed fare was Rs.20,000/-, out of which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- in advance and the remaining amount of Rs.5000/- was to be paid on 07.12.2008. It was alleged that the members of marriage party were to be pick up from Panchkula at 12.00 noon and it was assured by OPs that the bus would reach at 11.00 a.m. so that the luggage of the members of the marriage party could be loaded in the bus well in time. However, on 07.12.2008 the bus did not reach till 2.00 P.M. and Baratis were kept on waiting. Complainant made repeated calls on Mobile No.98142-11481 to OP-2 requesting him to send the bus immediately. Thereafter, OP-2 stopped receiving the calls made by the complainant from his mobile phone and then he made calls from the mobile phone Nos.9417385591 and 9814013482 and 988889116 of his friends and relatives but to no effect. Throughout OP NO.2 kept on assuring that the bus was getting fuel from the petrol pump and was about to reach. Ultimately, the complainant adjusted the members of the marriage party in one bus who went standing and some could not attend the marriage for want of conveyance. The complainant had to hire taxies at a short notice for carrying the remaining members of marriage party. It was alleged that complainant had to face humiliation and insult because of the failure on the part of OPs in sending the bus in time. Complainant also served upon OPs legal notice but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 5. On the other hand, OPs contested the complaint before the District Forum by filing reply inter-alia stating therein that the bus No.CH03F-8181 with Driver Balwant Singh alias Sodhi was sent at 11.00 a.m. at the house of complainant from where the members of the marriage party were to be pick up. It was pleaded that the number of the members of the marriage party was less, so, the complainant adjusted all the members of the marriage party in one bus and asked the driver of the OP to take back his bus. When the driver of the bus sent by OP-1 demanded the remaining amount of Rs.5000/-, the complainant abused him as well as OP-2. The matter was then reported to the police and DDR No.19 dated 07.12.2008 in P.S.Sector 19, Chandigarh was lodged. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 6. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, complainant as well as opposite parties have come up in their respective appeals. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the complainant is that the Opposite parties failed to send the bus booked for carrying the members of marriage party from Panchkula to Village Ikri, District Meerut (UP)due to which he had to suffer humiliation as some of the members went standing in the bus and at a short notice he had to hire cars. It was further argued that though no amount of compensation is sufficient to recover the mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant on the auspicious day of his son’s marriage, yet the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is not adequate under any stretch of imagination and requires to be enhanced. On the other hand, the only ground urged on behalf of OPs is that the Baratis were less in number so the same were accommodated in another bus of Manjit Bus Service which was booked by the complainant and when the driver of OP alongwith the Bus reached at the residence of complainant at 11.00 A.M. he started abusing the driver without any reason. He even misbehaved with OP No.2 and his driver when the balance amount of Rs.5000/- was demanded. For the misbehaviour and refusal to pay Rs.5000/-, DDR No.19 dated 7.12.2008 in PS,Sector-19 was lodged. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the DDR dated 7.12.2008 recorded in Police Station, Sector-19, Chandigarh does not appear to be genuine, inasmuch-as the occurrence as alleged by OPs had taken place at Panchkula i.e. in the State of Haryana, so there was no point or any reason to lodge the DDR in the Union Territory at Chandigarh police station. This defence of OPs appears to have been taken an afterthought in connivance with some police official known to OP NO.2. Therefore, same cannot be taken as genuine and trustworthy. 9. Further, it is well established on the file that the complainant had to arrange cars for which petrol was also arranged for covering the long distance from Panchkula to Village Ikri, Distt. Meerut, UP and on that count he had to pay toll tax at various toll plazas on State highways. Moreover, it is evident that OP failed to send his bus well in time as per agreed terms and due to failure on their part, complainant had to spend not only extra money but also faced humiliation and insult. So, taking into account all these facts and circumstances, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned District Forum appears on the lower side. Hence, we feel that if the same is enhanced from 10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- that would meet the ends of justice. So, we order accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal bearing NO.219/ 2010 filed by complainant is allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OPs are made liable to pay Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation in addition to other relief granted by the learned District Forum in its impugned order dated 7.5.2010.However, appeal bearing NO.303/2010 filed by OP is dismissed , leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
