BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 242/2005 Filed on 07/07/05 Dated : 16..02..2009
Complainant:
P. Thankarajan, Tharattayil Veedu, Tharattayil Lane, Kuzhivila, Karimanal-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Kuzhivila S. Chandran)
Opposite parties:
M/s. Megha Tours and Travels, Opp. Malayala Manorama, West Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. Represented by its Proprietor. The Proprietor, Megha Tours and Travels, ..do..
(By Adv. Amaravila P. Venugopalan Nair) This O.P having been heard on 13..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows: Attracted by the advertisements of the opposite parties, the complainant had approached the opposite parties for booking a Tourist bus in connection with his marriage on 22/05/2005 at Apsara Auditorium, Kovalam between 9 A.M and 9.20 P.M. So as to enable the bride-groom's party to reach the said ceremonial place in time, the bus was booked to arrive at the bride-groom's premises at 7.30A.M. The 2nd opposite party had agreed with the complainant's condition and with full assurance that the bus will reach the bride-groom's house at Kuzhivila, in front of the Chevrolet car shop in the Kazhakuttom bye-pass road which is also near the complainant's house, at 7.30 AM received Rs.500/- towards advance and part-payment. Since the bus had not reached in time, the complainant informed the opposite party several times through phone. Due to the non-performance of the opposite party, the complainant was put into dilemma. At the same time, the time fixed for marriage was fast approaching and the complainant could not find any altenative to reach the auditorium in time. So he was constrained to pay a huge amount for arranging vehicle at huge amount in the short time. Thus the complainant had suffered mentally and physically. He also found it difficult to face his invitees and well-wishers. The complainant's reputation and dignity was lowered by the act of the 2nd opposite party in not providing the required vehicle in time. Due to this act of the opposite parties, the complainant had to spend a sum of Rs. 6,750/-. The opposite parties have perpetrated unfair trade practice, unscrupulous exploitation and committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised service in time. The complainant has been put to irreparable injury, undue hardship, severe mental agony and loss. Hence this complaint.
2. The 1st opposite party is Megha Travels, 2nd opposite party is the Proprietor. The 1st & 2nd opposite parties filed version contending the allegations of the complaint. In their version they submit that the complainant had booked a tourist bus of 31 seats by paying an advance of Rs.500/- for the trip on 22..05..2005. The complainant had booked the bus for Rs.3,750/- and the complainant had agreed to pay the balance full amount on 21/05/2005 and the 2nd opposite party had contacted the complainant on 21/05/2005 and asked to come and pay the balance of Rs.3,250/-. Though the complainant had promised to come. The bus was ready by 6.00 AM on 22/05/2005 at the opposite parties' office. The complainant nor any representative came to the 2nd opposite party's office till that time as agreed at the time of booking. The opposite parties had repeatedly contacted the complainant then the complainant told that he would sent a person to Chavadi Junction to direct the driver to the route and place and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,250/- before starting the trip. Accordingly the bus left the opposite parties compound to the complainant's place at Chavadi Junction. When the bus reached Chavadi Junction there was nobody from the complainant's side to direct the route. Then the bus driver contacted the opposite parties and told that there was nobody from the complainant's side. The Manager of the opposite parties had contacted the complainant and told the bus is waiting at Chavadi Junction. Immediately the complainant told the Manager that there were more persons than expected and a 49 seater bus is required instead of a 31 seater bus booked by the complainant. The Manager of the opposite party had told the complainant that it is impossible to substitute a 49 seater bus at such a short notice then the complainant told the 1st opposite party that they did not require the bus at all. Thereafter the 1st opposite party driver came back. The 1st opposite party is only a booking agent who arranges Tourist buses and cars owned by other people. The opposite parties had to pay the balance full amount for the bus arranged by them. The 2nd opposite party had contacted the complainant and requested to pay the balance amount, but the complainant threatened him. The complainant filed this complaint just to avoid the payment of balance amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. In this case the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant has filed proof affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts P1 to P8. And also two witnesses were examined as PW2 & PW3. The Proprietor of the 1st opposite party has been examined as DW1 and a witness was examined as DW2. The opposite parties produced 2 documents.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : In this case there is no dispute regarding the matter that the complainant has booked the bus on 13/05/2005 for the purpose of his marriage on 22/05/2005 and the opposite parties accepted Rs.500/- as advance. The complainant argued that the opposite parties assured the complainant that the bus will reach at Kuzhivila, near Chevrolet carshop in Kovalam – Kazhakkuttom bye-pass road at 7.30 AM. But the bus has not reached the spot as agreed. The marriage was between 9AM and 9.20AM. The marriage party were constrained to wait at the spot till 8.30 AM. And thereafter he was constrained to do alternative arrangements for hiring vehicles, by paying huge amount and he suffered mental agony and sufferings. To prove his complaint the complainant produced 8 documents. Ext.P1 is the marriage invitation card, Ext.P2 is the local trip receipt No.838 issued to the complainant by the opposie parties on receipt of Rs.500/- as advance on 13/05/2005. From this document we can see that the booking is for travel on 22/05/2005 and the time of arrival is 7.30 AM. Ext.P3 is the receipt for Rs.950/- issued by Manu Raj towards hire for his vehicle KL-01 AE 1229. Ext. P4 is the copy of advocate's notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties on 25/05/2005 demanding compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. Ext.P5 is the postal receipt. Ext.P6 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite parties. Ext.P7 is the receipt for Rs.4,800/- issued by Manu Raj towards the vehicle – hire. The opposite parties argued that the opposite parties have agreed to hire out a 31 seater vehicle for a hire charge of Rs. 3,750/-, the complainant had told the Manager of the opposite parties that the place of journey to be started on 22/05/2005 would be intimated on 21/05/2005 by paying the balance hire charge. Since the information was not conveyed at the time of booking the vehicle the details of time and place of arrival of the vehicle was not noted in the booking receipt. The contention of the opposite parties on this point is not correct. It is the duty of the opposite parties to enquire and write the trip receipt from when the trip is to be started. In his deposition DW1 stated that 96 -ല് തുടങ്ങിയതാണ്ഈസ്ഥാപനം . As an experienced business man he should collect the details of arrangements in such type of trips like marriage functions. The argument of the opposite parties is that the trip will be undertaken only after paying the minimum hire charges before the day on which the trip is to be undertaken. This argument of the opposite parties is not sustainable, in the advance trip receipt there is no such type of terms and conditions seen. In this case they stated that they sent the bus and the bus reached Chavadi Junction. If at all the opposite parties were not bound to sent bus without the payment of minimum hire charges by the complainant, then why the opposite parties had sent the bus the day before marriage has not be clarified. In the above circumstance, we find it difficult to believe the opposite parties' contention. In this case the opposite parties have examined the driver of the bus, which was alleged to be sent, as DW2 and trip sheet was also produced. This witness is the employee of the opposite parties and the trip sheet was their own record. If the bus had arrived at complainant's place the driver could easily trace out the house of the complainant, because it was his marriage day and in the common parlance it is not that difficult to find out the house where marriage function is being conducted. Hence we cannot believe the statement of the opposite parties that the bus was sent.
6. From pleadings, affidavits, oral evidence and documentary evidence we have concluded that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite partis. The act of the opposite parties caused so much difficulties hardships, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Both parties had agreed that the hire charge was Rs.3,750/-. If the opposite parties sent the bus as per their agreement in time the complainant would not have had to spent additional amounts for alternate arrangements.
7. In this case the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised service in time and thereby the complainant has been put to irreparable injury, hardship, mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) paid by the complainant as advance on 13/05/2005 with 12% annual interest from 13/05/2005 till the date of realisation and opposite parties also shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest shall carry the above said amounts.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S .K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No. 242/2005
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Sisupalan PW2 : Sadasivan
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Wedding letter of complainant dated 22/5/2005 P2 : Local trip receipt No.838 dated 13/5/2005 for Rs.500/- issued by opposite parties P3 : Tourist Taxi receipt dated 22/5/2005 of vehicle No.KL 01-AE-1229 with licence No.T.816/200 P4 : Copy of advocate notice dated 25/5/2005 P5 : Postal receipt No.10948 P6 : Postal acknowledgment card P7 : Copy of reply notice dated 5/6/2005 issued by opposite party P8 : Power of Attorney dated 8/7/2005 of complainant. P9 : Receipt dated 22/5/2005 for Rs.4,800/-.
III. Opposite parties' Witness:
DW1 : Pradeep DW2 : Rajeev
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 242/2005 Filed on 07/07/05 Dated : 16..02..2009
Complainant:
P. Thankarajan, Tharattayil Veedu, Tharattayil Lane, Kuzhivila, Karimanal-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Kuzhivila S. Chandran)
Opposite parties:
M/s. Megha Tours and Travels, Opp. Malayala Manorama, West Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. Represented by its Proprietor. The Proprietor, Megha Tours and Travels, ..do..
(By Adv. Amaravila P. Venugopalan Nair) This O.P having been heard on 13..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows: Attracted by the advertisements of the opposite parties, the complainant had approached the opposite parties for booking a Tourist bus in connection with his marriage on 22/05/2005 at Apsara Auditorium, Kovalam between 9 A.M and 9.20 P.M. So as to enable the bride-groom's party to reach the said ceremonial place in time, the bus was booked to arrive at the bride-groom's premises at 7.30A.M. The 2nd opposite party had agreed with the complainant's condition and with full assurance that the bus will reach the bride-groom's house at Kuzhivila, in front of the Chevrolet car shop in the Kazhakuttom bye-pass road which is also near the complainant's house, at 7.30 AM received Rs.500/- towards advance and part-payment. Since the bus had not reached in time, the complainant informed the opposite party several times through phone. Due to the non-performance of the opposite party, the complainant was put into dilemma. At the same time, the time fixed for marriage was fast approaching and the complainant could not find any altenative to reach the auditorium in time. So he was constrained to pay a huge amount for arranging vehicle at huge amount in the short time. Thus the complainant had suffered mentally and physically. He also found it difficult to face his invitees and well-wishers. The complainant's reputation and dignity was lowered by the act of the 2nd opposite party in not providing the required vehicle in time. Due to this act of the opposite parties, the complainant had to spend a sum of Rs. 6,750/-. The opposite parties have perpetrated unfair trade practice, unscrupulous exploitation and committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised service in time. The complainant has been put to irreparable injury, undue hardship, severe mental agony and loss. Hence this complaint.
2. The 1st opposite party is Megha Travels, 2nd opposite party is the Proprietor. The 1st & 2nd opposite parties filed version contending the allegations of the complaint. In their version they submit that the complainant had booked a tourist bus of 31 seats by paying an advance of Rs.500/- for the trip on 22..05..2005. The complainant had booked the bus for Rs.3,750/- and the complainant had agreed to pay the balance full amount on 21/05/2005 and the 2nd opposite party had contacted the complainant on 21/05/2005 and asked to come and pay the balance of Rs.3,250/-. Though the complainant had promised to come. The bus was ready by 6.00 AM on 22/05/2005 at the opposite parties' office. The complainant nor any representative came to the 2nd opposite party's office till that time as agreed at the time of booking. The opposite parties had repeatedly contacted the complainant then the complainant told that he would sent a person to Chavadi Junction to direct the driver to the route and place and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,250/- before starting the trip. Accordingly the bus left the opposite parties compound to the complainant's place at Chavadi Junction. When the bus reached Chavadi Junction there was nobody from the complainant's side to direct the route. Then the bus driver contacted the opposite parties and told that there was nobody from the complainant's side. The Manager of the opposite parties had contacted the complainant and told the bus is waiting at Chavadi Junction. Immediately the complainant told the Manager that there were more persons than expected and a 49 seater bus is required instead of a 31 seater bus booked by the complainant. The Manager of the opposite party had told the complainant that it is impossible to substitute a 49 seater bus at such a short notice then the complainant told the 1st opposite party that they did not require the bus at all. Thereafter the 1st opposite party driver came back. The 1st opposite party is only a booking agent who arranges Tourist buses and cars owned by other people. The opposite parties had to pay the balance full amount for the bus arranged by them. The 2nd opposite party had contacted the complainant and requested to pay the balance amount, but the complainant threatened him. The complainant filed this complaint just to avoid the payment of balance amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. In this case the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant has filed proof affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts P1 to P8. And also two witnesses were examined as PW2 & PW3. The Proprietor of the 1st opposite party has been examined as DW1 and a witness was examined as DW2. The opposite parties produced 2 documents.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : In this case there is no dispute regarding the matter that the complainant has booked the bus on 13/05/2005 for the purpose of his marriage on 22/05/2005 and the opposite parties accepted Rs.500/- as advance. The complainant argued that the opposite parties assured the complainant that the bus will reach at Kuzhivila, near Chevrolet carshop in Kovalam – Kazhakkuttom bye-pass road at 7.30 AM. But the bus has not reached the spot as agreed. The marriage was between 9AM and 9.20AM. The marriage party were constrained to wait at the spot till 8.30 AM. And thereafter he was constrained to do alternative arrangements for hiring vehicles, by paying huge amount and he suffered mental agony and sufferings. To prove his complaint the complainant produced 8 documents. Ext.P1 is the marriage invitation card, Ext.P2 is the local trip receipt No.838 issued to the complainant by the opposie parties on receipt of Rs.500/- as advance on 13/05/2005. From this document we can see that the booking is for travel on 22/05/2005 and the time of arrival is 7.30 AM. Ext.P3 is the receipt for Rs.950/- issued by Manu Raj towards hire for his vehicle KL-01 AE 1229. Ext. P4 is the copy of advocate's notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties on 25/05/2005 demanding compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. Ext.P5 is the postal receipt. Ext.P6 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite parties. Ext.P7 is the receipt for Rs.4,800/- issued by Manu Raj towards the vehicle – hire. The opposite parties argued that the opposite parties have agreed to hire out a 31 seater vehicle for a hire charge of Rs. 3,750/-, the complainant had told the Manager of the opposite parties that the place of journey to be started on 22/05/2005 would be intimated on 21/05/2005 by paying the balance hire charge. Since the information was not conveyed at the time of booking the vehicle the details of time and place of arrival of the vehicle was not noted in the booking receipt. The contention of the opposite parties on this point is not correct. It is the duty of the opposite parties to enquire and write the trip receipt from when the trip is to be started. In his deposition DW1 stated that 96 -ല് തുടങ്ങിയതാണ്ഈസ്ഥാപനം . As an experienced business man he should collect the details of arrangements in such type of trips like marriage functions. The argument of the opposite parties is that the trip will be undertaken only after paying the minimum hire charges before the day on which the trip is to be undertaken. This argument of the opposite parties is not sustainable, in the advance trip receipt there is no such type of terms and conditions seen. In this case they stated that they sent the bus and the bus reached Chavadi Junction. If at all the opposite parties were not bound to sent bus without the payment of minimum hire charges by the complainant, then why the opposite parties had sent the bus the day before marriage has not be clarified. In the above circumstance, we find it difficult to believe the opposite parties' contention. In this case the opposite parties have examined the driver of the bus, which was alleged to be sent, as DW2 and trip sheet was also produced. This witness is the employee of the opposite parties and the trip sheet was their own record. If the bus had arrived at complainant's place the driver could easily trace out the house of the complainant, because it was his marriage day and in the common parlance it is not that difficult to find out the house where marriage function is being conducted. Hence we cannot believe the statement of the opposite parties that the bus was sent.
6. From pleadings, affidavits, oral evidence and documentary evidence we have concluded that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite partis. The act of the opposite parties caused so much difficulties hardships, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Both parties had agreed that the hire charge was Rs.3,750/-. If the opposite parties sent the bus as per their agreement in time the complainant would not have had to spent additional amounts for alternate arrangements.
7. In this case the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised service in time and thereby the complainant has been put to irreparable injury, hardship, mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) paid by the complainant as advance on 13/05/2005 with 12% annual interest from 13/05/2005 till the date of realisation and opposite parties also shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest shall carry the above said amounts.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S .K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No. 242/2005
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Sisupalan PW2 : Sadasivan
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Wedding letter of complainant dated 22/5/2005 P2 : Local trip receipt No.838 dated 13/5/2005 for Rs.500/- issued by opposite parties P3 : Tourist Taxi receipt dated 22/5/2005 of vehicle No.KL 01-AE-1229 with licence No.T.816/200 P4 : Copy of advocate notice dated 25/5/2005 P5 : Postal receipt No.10948 P6 : Postal acknowledgment card P7 : Copy of reply notice dated 5/6/2005 issued by opposite party P8 : Power of Attorney dated 8/7/2005 of complainant. P9 : Receipt dated 22/5/2005 for Rs.4,800/-.
III. Opposite parties' Witness:
DW1 : Pradeep DW2 : Rajeev
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
