KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.537/09 JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER The Proprietor,Ansana Travels, Kanichanalloor, Muttom P.O, -- APPELLANT Harippad, Alleppy. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs. 1. Sri.P.Surendran Nair, Panayil House (Chithira) Karuvatta Thekkum muri, Kumarapuram Village, Alleppy. 2. Sri.Krishna Pillai, -- RESPONDENTS Panayil House (Chithira) Karuvatta Thekkum muri, Kumarapuram Village, Alleppy. JUDGMENT SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER It is aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.08 in CC.169/07 of CDRF, Alappuzha that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. The complainants had approached the Forum alleging that though they had booked 3 tourist buses in connection with the marriage of the son of the first complainant on 13.5.07, by paying an advance amount of Rs.3000/-, the opposite party had sent only 2 buses and as the third bus did not reach there on time he had suffered great inconveniences and had to arrange private vehicles for sending the invitees to the marriage place. It was submitted that contrary to the agreement, the buses of the opposite party did not reach at the appointed time and due to the in ordinate delay, the invitees could not attend the function as the same was over when they reached. The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and inconveniences suffered by the complainants along with costs. 3. On receiving notice from the Forum, the opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that though it was agreed to sent 3 tourist buses for the marriage on 13.5.07 at the rate of Rs.6000/- per bus together with Bata for the driver and though the amount of Rs.3000/- was obtained from the complainants only 2 buses could be sent due to the fact that the third bus met with an accident on the previous day and it was beyond their control that they could not send the third bus. It was also submitted that the opposite party had sent another bus to be used by the complainants which was returned saying that there was no necessity for the said bus. It was further submitted that the arrangement of taxis for sending passengers was not correct and the opposite party was entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant together with 18% interest from 13.5.07 with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 4. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit on the side of the complainant who was examined as PW1 and documents A1 and A2 series. On the side of the opposite party, RW1 was examined and a copy of the FIR was marked as Ext.B1. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted before us that the order of the Forum below in directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- is basically unsustainable and illegal. It is his very case that the compensation awarded is without any basis and he invited our attention to the fact that even admitting the fact that the opposite party had sent 2 buses, the opposite party was entitled to get Rs.12,000/- and the Bata for the drivers and as only an amount of Rs.3000/- was advanced the opposite party was entitled to the balance of Rs.9000/-. He has also argued that the complainant had not proved A2 bills properly by examining any of the drivers who issued the receipts. It is his further case that even if it is admitted that the taxies were arranged the total amount that would have been paid is only Rs.5375/- and the opposite party is entitled to get the balance of Rs.3625/- and in such a situation the Forum below had patently gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel has advanced the contention that only 2 buses were used for the marriage ceremony and the third bus which was sent by them was returned as it was not needed by the complainants. He has also invited our attention to the deposition of the first complainant who was examined as PW1 who deposed before the Forum that he had not given the charges for the buses used by him. It is also submitted by him that though RW1 was examined nothing could be brought out by the complainant to discredit the contentions of the opposite party. Thus, he canvassed for the position that the appeal is to be allowed and the complaint is to be dismissed. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that as per Ext.A1 there is an agreement between the parties agreeing to make 3 buses available on 13.5.07 by 6.30 A.M. It is also seen that the amount of Rs.3000/- was paid as advance. It is further noted that the rate agreed was Rs.6000/- + Bata for the drivers. Neither the complainants nor the opposite party had a case that the 2 buses did not reach the complainants and were not available for transporting invitees to the marriage place. Ext.B1 clearly shows that a bus belonging to the opposite party had met with an accident on 12.5.07. The opposite party’s case is that even though the third bus was involved in an accident they arranged another bus which was returned by the complainants as there was no necessity for the third bus. The complainants would argue that they had arranged 5 taxies for commuting the remaining invitees by paying Rs.1075/- for each taxi and thus a total sum of Rs.5375/- was paid as per Ext.A2 series bills. However, the complainants have no case that they have paid the charges for the 2 buses that reached the destination carrying the invitees. On that account no other amount other than Rs.3000/- is seen paid by the complainants. It is also to be found that though the complainants have produced Ext.A2 series, the same are not proved properly by examining the drivers of the cars hired by the complainants. In the said circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum below in directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.2000/- cannot be sustained. The order of the Forum is liable to be set aside. Hence we do so accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 31.12.08 in CC 169/07 is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L | 
