BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 214/2002 Filed on 25.05.2002 Dated : 30.12.2008 Complainant:
Santhosh Kumar.G, President, Sri Dharma Sastha Temple, Karikuzhy, Panavoor P.O, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party:
Proprietor, Dyna Travels, Dyna Agencies, Ansari Buildings, Kallambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. R. Vidyadharan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 29.10.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 02.12.2008, the Forum on 30.12.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant, President, Sri Dharma Sastha Temple, Karikuzhy booked a bus on 08.05.2002 for a hiring charge of Rs. 5,500/- for a pilgrim journey on 24.05.2002, with the opposite party, the proprietor, Dyna Travels. As per the terms and conditions the complainant remitted Rs. 250/- as advance on 08.05.2002. The opposite party agreed that the bus shall arrive at the boarding place on 24.05.2002 at 4.30 a.m. On that assurance the complainant and the other 49 people were ready for the journey on 24.05.2002 at 4.30 a.m. But the opposite party's bus did not arrive thereafter in the specified time. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the reason why they have not sent the bus. Then the opposite party replied that the driver was not available. The complainant requested the opposite party to arrange another bus for the journey, but the opposite party did not arrange the bus to the complainant. As per the complainant, the opposite party wilfully cheated the complainant that the opposite party has no bus with the facility to travel with 49 travellers. Due to the unfair trade practice and deficient service the travellers suffered a lot. The travellers had so many plans regarding this pilgrim journey, but due to the act of the opposite party, the journey was postponed. The complainant apprehends that the image of the temple administrative authorities will be severely affected with this incident. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for their grievance. The opposite party filed version. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had booked the bus on 08.05.2002 for a hiring charge of Rs. 5,500/- on 24.05.2002 and remitted Rs. 250/- as advance. As per the terms and conditions entered into between the complainant and opposite party, the complainant has agreed to remit the balance amount of Rs. 5,250/- prior to the journey. The opposite party states that the complainant further agreed that the contract entered into will be concluded by remitting the balance amount prior to the journey and in case he fails to do so, the booking will stand cancelled without any notice and the complainant will have no right to claim the advance amount. The opposite party alleges that the complainant himself has committed breach of contract and there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant in this case was examined as PW1 and he has produced two documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 and P2. The opposite party cross examined the complainant. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and produced the document marked as Ext. D1. Points to be ascertained: Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- The document produced by the complainant as Ext. P1 is the copy of agreement form. This document shows that the complainant had booked the bus for a journey on 24.05.2002 and he has paid Rs. 250/- as advance and the balance amount to be paid was Rs. 5,250/-. As per the agreement, the first condition was that the balance amount shall be paid before the journey at the office of the opposite party, otherwise bus will not be sent. The second condition was that if the booking is cancelled, advance amount will not be refunded. In this case the main allegation against the complainant by the opposite party is that the complainant did not remit the balance amount before the journey. For that reasons, the opposite party did not sent the bus. The opposite party produced the original agreement signed by the opposite party and the complainant before this Forum and that document was marked as Ext. D2. Opposite party states that the complainant himself violated the agreement. They did not remit the balance amount before the due time. Hence the opposite party did not send the bus to the complainant. In this case the complainant has pleaded that the opposite party had agreed and permitted the complainant to remit the balance amount during the journey. But he has no evidence to prove that statement. And also the complainant argued that the complainant had filed complaint before the police authorities about this case. But he has no evidence to prove that statement also. The only document before us to peruse is the Ext. D1. Ext. D1 is the photocopy of Ext. P1. The complainant and opposite party have signed in this document. As per this agreement the complainant will remit the balance amount prior to the journey and in case he fails to do so, the booking will stand cancelled without any notice and the complainant will have no right to claim the balance amount. From the documents and from the pleadings itself, it is clear that the complainant has not remitted the balance amount as per the agreement before the commencement of the journey. Though the complainant has pleaded that the opposite party had agreed that the balance amount need be paid only during the journey it has not been proved with corroborative evidence. If at all the complainant had lodged any complaint as alleged in the complaint before the police authorities, the details with regard to the same has not been produced to prove its genuineness. Ext. D2 is an agreement which is seen signed by both the parties and accordingly the parties are bound by the terms and conditions accepted in between them. Therefore the complainant as well as the opposite party is liable to follow the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant is precluded from claiming any benefit of violation of the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Taking all the above facts and circumstances into consideration we have found that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint and we are left with no other option than to dismiss the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
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 day of 30th December 2008.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 214/2002 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Santhosh Kumar II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of agreement form dated 24.05.2002.
P2 - Photocopy of agreement form dated 23.05.2002.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Original agreement form dated 08.05.2002.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
