<br /> Dated this the 26th day of November 2007<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- Sri. K. Gheevarghese, M.A, L.L.B. - President.<br /> Smt. Saji Mathew, B.A, L.L.B. - Member.<br /> <br /> V.M. Valsan, S/o Raghavan, :<br /> 'Sunaina', Mananthavady P.O, : Complainant.<br /> Wayanad District. :<br /> <br /> <br /> The Proprietor, :<br /> M/S Wayanad Travels, : Opposite Party.<br /> Kamblakkad P.O, Wayanad. :<br /> <br /> Complainant by :- Sri. Babu Cyriac, Advocate, Kalpetta.<br /> Opposite Party by :- Sri. K.M. Thomas, Advocate, Kalpetta.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> The Complainant booked the Tourist Bus on 28.01.2005 owned by the Opposite Party. The Bus was scheduled to ply the service from Mananthavady to Calicut, this tourist bus of the Opposite Party was arranged to take kith and kin of the Complainants in connection with the marriage of his daughter at Suryakanthi Kallyana Mandapam, Calicut. As per the terms and conditions agreed mutually the bus has to reach the theater compound of the Complainant at 6 AM. The Complainant is also the proprietor of Sreelakshmi Talkies Mananthavady. At the time of booking the Complainant had given Rs.3,000/- as advance and the balance was promised to pay later. The Complainant relying on the terms and conditions with the Opposite Party went to Calicut the day before with the bride and some of the relatives. The Complainant's Son was vested with the responsibilities to take the bridal party on the next day in the bus already booked. As per<br /> (Contd........ 2)<br /> 2 -<br /> <br /> the terms agreed the Opposite Party was responsible to reach the venue at 6 AM on 07.02.2005. The Opposite Party's Bus did not reach the place in the appointed time and even after a reasonable time. The Complainant's Son talked to driver over telephone the seriousness of the trip and anyhow the bus was taken to spot lately. The passengers boarded in the bus and started journey without losing time. While plying the service when the bus was reached at Kamblakad town the driver stopped the vehicle there waiting for the Opposite Party the consequences of the delay and its impacts were already informed to the driver but according to him he would not proceed service without seeing the Opposite Party. The reason point out that the vehicle is to be tanked with diesel. The driver showed no responsibility in transporting the party. In order to diesel the Bus 20 minutes were lost apart from that during the course of the journey the driver was attending Mobile phone calls and no importance was given to the purpose of the journey. Finally the bus <br /> reached calicut town at 10.45 AM on the particular day of the marriage. The relatives and friends<br /> who were in bus reached the venue of the marriage ceremony not in time. The function of marriage was over the Complainant's Son, other close relatives and friends were forced to be away from attending the marriage function and it caused extensive mental pain and disappointment. The Opposite Party was informed of muhurtham well in advance and the time agreed to start vehicle from Mananthavady as agreed was 6 AM. The carelessness and the lack of seriousness shown by the Opposite Party resulted the mental pain and agony to the Complainant and relatives. The bill was settled when the journey was over. The lose and injury caused to the Complainant and relatives are only because of the deficiency of service of the Opposite Party. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards the damages lose and injury. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The booking of the Bus was for the purpose of carrying the marriage party from Mananthavady to Calicut on 07.02.2005 is admitted by <br /> (Contd........ 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> <br /> the Opposite Party. According to them the bus reached the venue as assigned at 5.15 AM on 07.02.2005. The size of the body of the bus is long. The location were the bus has to be turned was spacious enough because of that the bus had to go ahead around 2 km from the point of turning bus. Anyhow along with the marriage party the bus started running before 7 AM on the particular day. On the way to Calicut the bus was stopped at hair pin bent Lakkidi for having food afterwards before reaching Calicut because of traffic jam the bus could not reach the venue of the marriage in advance. Anyhow the passengers were taken to Calicut and they were alighted at Calicut at 10.45 AM. The delay if any caused it is only because of the Complainant's stopping the vehicle in hairpin bent to have food and that a part being the bus is of hitech facility, it was not easy for the driver to turn the bus in all places. The Complainant allegations as such the bus driver stopped at Kamblakad for 20 minutes to fuel the vehicle and intermittently the bus was <br /> stopped to attend phone are denied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation and it is to be dismissed with cost.<br /> <br /> The points which are to be decided are:<br /> 1.Whether the Complainant's service of bus operation incur deficiency?.<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. The invitation letter of the marriage is the Ext.A1. Tour booking order form dated 28.1.2005 is marked as Ext.A2. The receipt given by the driver towards the payment of the trip amount is the Ext.A3, the receipt shows that the bus plied the service for the amount of Rs.5,796/-. As per the Ext.A3 the bus started from Mananthavady at 7 AM on 07.02.2005 and reached Calicut at 10.45 AM. Ext.A1 shows that the Muhurtham of<br /> (Contd....... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> the marriage was in between 10 AM to 10.45 AM, the marriage ceremonies were held at Surykanthi Kallyana Mandapam at Calicut. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. He was also traveling in the bus along with the marriage party according to him the bus started from Mananthavady at 7 AM there was a delay of one hour in starting the service from Mananthavady. The Opposite Party had no such pleading that apart from the driver the owner of the bus too traveled in along with the marriage party, it is deposed by the Opposite Party there was no delay on the way to Calicult. More over it is to be noted that even though the owner of the bus traveled along with the party he could not depose of the junction at the residence of the Complainant Apart from that the Opposite Party is not in a position to explain the details of the junction near the house of Complainant. It is to be presumed that the OPW1 is not reliable witness though OPW1 is a crew aboded in the bus he could not stage the location of the Thali <br /> Temple. Anyhow in the course of journey according to the OPW1 the bus was stopped at Iranhipalam for half an hour. The PW3 is the son of the Complainant the marriage party was escorted by PW3 the residence of the what Complainant is adjacent to Lekshmi Theatre which is owned by the Complainant himself. In the compound of his theatre enough facility is there to turn the bus. The OPW1 stated that the bus in which the travel is not a hitech vehicle according to him if any statement is there that the bus used was hitech is incorrect. Anyhow it is admittedly seen that the bus reached residence of the Complainant at 7 AM in order to take marriage party at Calicut. The PW2 is the person who traveled along with the marriage party he too deposed that the bus reached Mananthavady at 7 AM as per the information that he was given the bus would be coming there at 7 AM on the particular day. All the ceremonial functions of the marriage was over when the party reached the venue of the marriage. According to PW3 the bus carried the relatives and friends and whose presence in the Temple was inevitable but when all of them reached there the function of marriage was over. The contention of the Opposite Party that the <br /> bus could not be turned at the vicinity of the residence of the Complainant and the delay cost is<br /> (Contd....... 5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> due to the inconvenience in turning the bus is nothing but a frivolous excuse. The Opposite Party had to comply with the terms and conditions of booking order form the starting time mentioned in it is at 6 AM. The Opposite Party could have made the marriage party to reach the marriage venue in the proper time if sufficient care was shown the distress and taint of the Complainant and the parties accompanied cannot be taken likely lack of seriousness. He shown in the operation of the bus carrying the marriage party to Calicut, the point No.1 is found against the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> The Ext.A3 shows that the Complainant gave the Opposite Party Rs.5,796/- towards charge<br /> of the trip. The bus was hired in order to take the marriage party to attend the marriage function, the purpose is not served though the money was spend. It is absolutely a deficient in service of the Opposite Party. This resulted distress and pain to the Complainant. The return of the charge received by the Opposite Party will not mitigate the lose and injury caused to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has to give Rs.6,000/- to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> In the result the Opposite Party is directed to give Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) to the Complainant as compensation along with the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of this order in case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26th day of November 2007.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/- <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> 6 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> PW1. Valsan Complainant.<br /> PW2. M. Das Rtd. Research & Development Mechanic.<br /> PW3. Sayooj Software Engineer.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Opposite Party:<br /> OPW1. Saji Mathew Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> A1. Invitation letter of marriage. <br /> A2. Tour booking order form. <br /> A3. Receipt.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite Party: <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> M/<br />