Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is preferred by Sri Chanchal Kumar Ghosh & Anr., the de facto Complainants of CC/257/2017, against the Order dated 27-11-2018, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (North), whereby the aforesaid case has been allowed in part.
The said case was filed by the Appellants alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in arranging proper transportation of marriage party to the wedding site.
In this connection, parties were heard in great detail and documents on record gone through extensively.
It appears from the money receipts issued by the Respondents that the bus was supposed to reach airport at 2.00 p.m. on 09-12-2016 to pick up the marriage party and take them to the wedding site at Diamond Harbour. As against this, it transpires from the car duty slip that the bus reached airport at 03.45 p.m. In view of this, there can be no manner of doubt that the bus reached the scheduled site 01.45 hrs. late.
Now, if a bus makes so much delay in reaching the scheduled site, it is quite natural that it is bound to create lot of unwarranted confusion, anxiety, harassment, mental stress and pain to the hirer of such service. Since emotions run high with this kind of social events, it is quite understandable that eventually the Appellants suffered loss of face for no fault of theirs.
It is not the case of the Respondents that owing to technical/mechanical failure of the bus the delay occurred. Therefore, the Respondents cannot shrug of their responsibility for unnecessarily harassing so many hapless persons on account of sheer lack of accountability on their part.
The guilt of the Respondents does not end here. The Respondents, as it appears from the documents on record, not only overcharged the Appellants, but also billed them without decorating the Corolla Altis car and the copy of photograph placed on record bear clear testimony of such fact. It was a clear instance of unfair trade practice on their part. Merely because the Respondents subsequently offered to refund the excess amount, such unethical practices cannot be let off lightly.
Lastly, if the tone and tenor of letter written by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents is anything to go by, it cannot be said that the Respondents were least apologetic for the undue persecution of Appellants and their guests. It is indeed unfortunate that derogatory comments like “……you are solely responsible for the delay as alleged by you (if any delay is there) because you felt waiting for the Bus to accompanying the groom by large number of female is more important than the Almanac time of the marriage” (sic) were used by the concerned Ld. Advocate to rub salt to the injury of the Appellants.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents wondered, why did the groom did not start for the place of marriage forthwith instead of waiting for the bus if they were indeed in a state of hurry. In this regard, it is clarified by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants that since the Respondents as well as the concerned driver repeatedly assured them that the bus would reach shortly, they preferred to go by such assurance.
Considering all aspects, we deem it appropriate to allow a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the Appellants. Respondents are directed to pay the differential amount within a period of 40 days from today, i.d., they shall be liable to pay simple interest @9% p.a. over the differential amount, as above, for the entire period of default.
The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in part.
