Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/41/2024

SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VERMA REMPO TRAVELLERS THROUGH OWNER GOURAV VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

MUKTA SHARMA

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/41/2024
Date of Institution	:	11/1/2024
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Suresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Visakhu Ram, R/o House No.21-A, Sector- 51-A, Chandigarh, Badhen, Chandigarh-160036, now presently residing at R/o House No.73, Phase-IV, Sector-59, Mohali.

...Complainant

Versus

 

M/s. Verma Tempo Traveler, Booth No.147, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh-160036, through its owner Mr. Gourav Verma .

...Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for the complainant
	:	Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in the month of June 2023  the complainant approached  the OP who is engaged in the business  of tour and travel, for  hiring vehicle for the purpose of travelling and sightseeing in and around Manali and Kasol from 11.6.2023 to 15.6.2023.  The OP quoted  price of Rs.38,000/- for a tempo traveler  including the charges of driver, taxes and other expenses since the OP assured the safe travelling of the complainant and his family members, the complainant agreed to pay  the aforesaid amount in two installments  i.e. 40% before travel and 60% on the completion of the journey.  Before confirming the booking,  the OP sent picture Annexure C-1 of 4-5 of tempo travelers  on whatsapp owned by OP  and the complainant was offered to choose an traveler amongst the aforesaid tempo travelers. Thereafter the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.2,000/-  online in the account of the OP in order to seek confirmation  of booking and the copy of receipt is annexed as Annexure C-2.   The OP asked the complainant to pay partially for travel which was also transferred  by the complainant in the account of the OP online. Copy of transaction receipt  of Rs.15,000/- is annexed as Annexure C-3.  The complainant was provided contact number of driver Krishan and details of tempo bearing No. PB-01B-9029 (hereinafter referred to be subject vehicle). On 11.6.2023 the complainant and his family members departed for family trip in the subject vehicle. However during travelling the driver of the subject vehicle  took multiple halts   in between on the pretext of pouring water in the coolant.  The complainant got suspicious about the condition of the subject vehicle  but the driver of the subject vehicle denied of any problem in the subject vehicle. However, the entire  trip of the complainant and his family was not comfortable as the subject vehicle was stopped frequently at  short distance for pouring water in the coolant. On 12.6.2023 the complainant and his family  members left from Manali to Rohtang  but in the midway,  the subject vehicle started producing smog heavily which caused suffocation even inside the subject vehicle and the driver had stopped the same in the midway of Manali-Rohtang. Immediately the complainant asked the OP to make alternative arrangement and  the OP by not believing the words of the complainant, asked the complainant to send video or photograph of the  subject vehicle which was accordingly sent by the complainant. The complainant and his family members were stuck in the midway on road without any food and water  and shelter for more than 4 hours  and no alternative vehicle was provided by the OP  and at around 3:30 pm., the driver of the subject vehicle informed that he is taking back the subject vehicle to Manali and if they want to accompany him they can  and on finding no other alternative, the complainant and his family members  were compelled to come back to Manali without visiting Rohtang. After sometime when the subject vehicle reached near Vashisth Road, Manali from where the hotel of the complainant was 6-7 KMs, driver of the subject vehicle stopped the vehicle and asked the complainant and his family members to move out of the subject vehicle and make their own arrangements  for reaching to hotel.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the OP at 7:35 p.m. and apprised about the situation and   after waiting for around one hour when no vehicle was provided by the OP, the complainant and his family members were compelled to walk on road for about 2 Kms and thereafter managed to get two taxi for their hotel for which they had paid Rs.4,000/- cash to reach at hotel. On 13.6.2023  the complainant requested the OP to make arrangement for remaining days of trip  but the OP started demanding Rs.5,000/- for completing the tour and the complainant left with no alternative paid Rs.5,000/- to the OP.  On 14.6.2023 the complainant and his family were waiting for travel arrangement as promised by the OP for visit to Manikaran and other sight seeing  but the OP did not send any vehicle. The complainant made numerous calls to the OP and ultimately the OP stopped taking calls of the complainant  but  before proceeding back to Mohali at 4.00 p.m. when the complainant contacted the driver of the subject vehicle  he informed the complainant that the vehicle will be ready at 4:30 pm.  but it did not reach in time as a result of which the complainant and his family had to travel in another vehicle upto Bhunter for which they had to pay Rs.2000/- . The complainant and his family started journey in the subject vehicle from Bhuntar to Mohali and the complainant and his family members were forced to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6000/- to the OP. It is alleged that the subject vehicle was not fit for travel as the same was running without fitness  certificate. The copy of fitness certificate is annexed as Annexure C-8.   In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder of party and  concealment of facts. However, it is admitted that the complainant has booked the subject vehicle  for the aforesaid trip at the relevant time but denied that there was engine problem in the subject vehicle  and also that there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP.  It is further alleged that the complainant had paid Rs.28,000/-,  out of the total amount of Rs.38,000/- but denied that the complainant made any arrangement for the different places for sight seeing rather the OP had made alternative arrangements whenever  request was received from the complainant. Moreover, as per case of the complainant 12-14 members were travelling in the subject vehicle but only the complainant has filed the instant complaint  and the other members have not joined the complainant, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. It is admitted that due to some mechanical fault it was not possible for the driver of the OP to  ressume the journey to Rohtang and he had decided to take back the vehicle to Manali for repair and the said fault was beyond the control of the OP. It is denied that the complainant has spent huge amount for alternative arrangement.  In fact when the OP asked the complainant to pay the balance amount on the completion of the trip, he instead of paying the balance amount has filed the instant false complaint against the OP. It is further alleged that so far as the fitness certificate is concerned the same is matter of record. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   3. No rejoinder filed on behalf of complainant.  
2. In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked  the subject vehicle from OP for an amount of Rs.38,000/-, out of which the complainant paid Rs.28,000/- in advance for the trip to Manali w.e.f. 11.6.2023 to 15.6.2023  and due to mechanical defect in the subject vehicle, the complainant and his family members had to travel in other vehicle after reaching Manali  for  reaching  hotel and sight seeing, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OP had provided the subject vehicle which was not mechanically fit for the said trip as a result of which the complainant and his family members were harassed  by the OP and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the OP had made alternative arrangement for the sight seeing of the complainant during the period when the subject vehicle  was taken for repair and the OP had made payment for the alternative arrangements and the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. As per case of the complainant the trouble started in the subject vehicle even on the first day when the complainant and his family members were travelling to Manali in the subject vehicle and the driver of the subject vehicle stopped the vehicle for pouring water in the coolant at small distances and even after reaching Manali on the next day the subject vehicle could not reach Rohtang rather the same was forced to be taken back to Manali due to deficient engine oil and even on the same day the complainant had to make alternative arrangement in the midway as the complainant and his family could not reach their hotel at Manali and thereafter even for Manikaran the complainant and his family members had to make alternative arrangements by hiring other vehicles  and when they came back from Manikaran  on the same day they travelled from Bhuntar to Sunder Nagar and the complainant was asked  to pay Rs.6000/- in the account of the OP and thereafter the complainant and his family members reached Mohali in the subject vehicle after undergoing a lot of mental agony and physical harassment due to negligent act of the OP.
   3. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the OP in its written version that the subject vehicle did not suffer from any mechanical defect and the same was even taken for repair and only on the next day same was provided to the complainant at Bhuntar. As per defence of the OP it had made alternative arrangements for the complainant but there is no iota of evidence if the OP had paid for the alternative arrangements by hiring other vehicle rather the complainant has proved on record that he made alternative arrangement by hiring other vehicles  and making payment in cash for the same.
   4. So far as the fact that the subject vehicle was not mechanically fit for the trip is concerned, the same has been denied by the OP. However, , as per Vehicle Record Annexure C-8, it is clear that the fitness of the subject vehicle was  only valid for the period upto 20.3.2020, making it  further clear that the subject vehicle was not mechanically fit during the trip as the subject vehicle was provided by the OP for trip of complainant and his family for the period from 11.6.2023 to 15.6.2023. Thus one thing is clear on record that the subject vehicle being not fit for plying at the relevant time, the OP has put the life of the complainant and his family in high risk during the trip  by providing the subject vehicle which was not mechanically fit for the aforesaid trip and the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP.
   5. So far as the defence of OP that the complainant has not impleaded the other members of the family as parties to the instant complaint is concerned, as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has hired the services of the OP and made payment of Rs.28,000/- from his account, to our mind the other members of the trip are not necessary parties as the services of OP were hired by complainant and entire payment was also made by him.     Hence this objection of OP is rejected being meritless.
   6.  So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, as per case of complainant he had paid an amount of Rs.28,000/- to the OP for the said trip and as per complainant he also paid additional amount of Rs.8400/-  for hiring vehicle for alternative arrangements during the trip. Though the complainant has prayed for refund of the entire amount of Rs.28,000/- having been paid by him to the OP, to our mind  the complainant is only entitled for the additional amount paid by him for the alternative arrangements  especially when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant and his family members have travelled in the subject vehicle from Mohali to Manali and from Bhuntar to Mohali as per itinerary.  However, when it is proved on record that the OP had not provided mechanically fit vehicle for the trip of the complainant and his family and thereby  had put the life of the complainant and his family on high risk which is apparent from the sequence of incidences during the trip as the vehicle stopped time and again during journey, which caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and his family members for which the OP is liable to pay compensation to the complainant .
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-
   1. to refund  ₹8400/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from  14.6.2023 till onwards
   2. to pay ₹25,000/- /- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member