DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 542 of 2009 Date of Inst: 21.04.2009 Date of Decision:07.05.2010 Chander Pal Tyagi son of Late Shri R.R.Tyagi r/o Flat No.112, Society No.GH-6, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula (Hry.). ---Complainant V E R S U S1. M/s Golden Travel Co. through its Proprietor # 1285, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh. 2nd Address:M/s Golden Travel Co., SCO No.65, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. 3rd Address:M/s Golden Travel Co., SCO No.352, Top Floor, New Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh. 2. Mr.Rohti Raghuvanshi, Authorized Representative, M/s Golden Travel Co., # 1285, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.---Opposite PartiesQUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Rakesh K.Sharma, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rajesh Sood, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Chander Pal Tyagi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- paid for hiring the bus. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum Rs.50000/- for arranging the alternate transport iv) Pay a sum Rs.5500/- as cost for issuing the legal notice. v) Pay a sum Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The admitted facts are that the marriage of the son of the complainant was fixed on 07.12.2008. The marriage party was to go to Village Ikri, District Merrut (UP). As the members of the marriage party were large in number, the complainant required two buses. As there was number of marriages on that day, OPs told that only one bus was available on that day. So the complainant booked one bus from the OPs for taking the marriage party to Village Ikri, District Merrut (UP). The second bus was hired from another operator. The agreed fare was Rs.20,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- in advance and the remaining amount was to be paid on 07.12.2008. The case of the complainant is that the marriage party was to leave Panchkula at 12.00 noon. So OP was asked to send the bus at the place from where the marriage party was to start 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. It has further been pleaded that on 07.12.2008, the bus did not reach till 12.00 noon, so he made call to OP-2 requesting him to send the bus immediately. Thereafter, he waited for the bus but the bus did not reach. The complainant made several calls to the OP-2 but to no effect. Thereafter, OP-2 stopped receiving the calls made by the complainant from his mobile phone. Therefore, the complainant made calls from the mobile phone Nos.9417385591 and 9814013482 and 988889116 of his friends and relatives but to no effect. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he waited for the bus upto 2.00 p.m. but it did not reach the place from where the marriage party was to depart. Ultimately, the complainant adjusted the members of the marriage party in one bus and arranged for some cars. According to the complainant, he had to face humiliation and insult because of the failure on the part of OPs to send the bus in time which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that the bus was sent at 11.00 a.m. at the place from where the marriage party was to depart. However, as the number of the members of the marriage party who were to accompany the bridegroom was less, 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. So, the matter was reported to the police and a DDR No.19 dated 07.12.2008 in P.S.Sector 19, Chandigarh was lodged. According to OPs, the bus was sent in time but the complainant refused to take the bus for the reasons mentioned above. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, Annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The case of the complainant is that the bus of the OPs did not reach in time so he had to adjust the members of the marriage party in one bus and to arrange for several cars in order to adjust them. On the other hand, the case of OPs is that the bus reached the place from where the marriage party was to depart in time but the complainant refused to take the bus to Village Ikri, District Merrut (UP) as the number of the members of marriage party was less and they were adjusted in the bus of the other operator. 6. The complainant has placed on record the details of calls made from mobile phone Nos. 98142-11481, 9417385591, 9814013482 and 988889116. From the perusal of these details, it is apparent that the complainant made several calls to OPs in between 11.49 a.m. to 1.54 p.m. Had the bus reached the place from where the marriage party was to depart, the complainant would have no reason to make repeated calls to OPs. It was argued by the OPs that the said calls were made by the complainant to intimate them that he was not taking the bus and the driver of the bus be asked to take back the bus. This argument of the learned counsel for the OPs cannot be accepted. Had it been so one call would have been sufficient for that purpose. So the version of the complainant stands fortified from the details of calls (Annexure C-2 (Colly.). In these circumstances from the material on record, it has duly been proved that the bus did not reach the place from where the marriage party was to depart in time. Therefore, the complainant had to adjust the members of marriage party in one bus only and he had to arrange some cars for adjusting the remaining members of marriage party. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 7. However, the complainant has failed to prove the payment of remaining amount of Rs.5000/-. No receipt regarding the payment of remaining amount of Rs.5000/- has been placed on record. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of this amount. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs: i) to refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- being the advance charges paid by the complainant for hiring the bus. ii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.04.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 07.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
