BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

O.P. No. 190/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. K. Rajendran, Leefa Bhavan, Pirappancodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Leefa, W/o K. Rajendran,              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 191/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Lekshmanan, Vairadathu Veedu, Kottukunnam P.O, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. S. Santhi, W/o Lekshmanan,                  ..do..           ..do..
3. Anitha, D/o Gopalan,                                       ..do..           ..do..
4. Jyothi. J, D/o Jaya,                                 ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 192/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. D. Raveendran Nair, Kairali, Kannankodu, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Saraswathi, W/o D. Raveendran Nair,              ..do..           ..do..
3. Arjun, S/o D. Raveendran Nair,                       ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 193/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. S. Rajendran, Melathil, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Sindhu, W/o Rajendran,               ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 194/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Surajan, Soumya Nivas, Valiyakattakkal, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Sindhu. V.L, W/o Surajan,           ..do..           ..do..
3. Soumya S. Raj, D/o Surajan,        ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 195/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. S. Madhavan Potty, Paloor Madam, Edavanaparambu, Kottukunnam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Vasudevan Potty,                ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 196/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. J. Anantha Krishnan, Aswathy Bhavan, Kottukunnam, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. S. Geetha Devi, W/o Anantha Krishnan,                    ..do..           ..do..
3. Aswathy Krishnan,                                           ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 197/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. K. Ramabhadran, Ushus, Parameshwaram, Mudakkal  P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Rejani,                       ..do..           ..do..
3. Anoop,                      ..do..           ..do..
4. Aneesh,                     ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 198/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Harsha Kumar, Puthuval Vila Veedu, Kottukunnam P.O, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Lisa,                           ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 199/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Sasi, Aswathy Bhavan, Parameshwaram, Mundakkal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Shobhana,                 ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 200/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainant:

          Jayan, Melathil Veedu, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 201/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. S. Vijayakumaran, ‘Rappadi’, Block Office Road, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Zeena. N.I, W/o S. Vijayakumaran,                  ..do..           ..do..
3. Hashmi @ Rakku, S/o S. Vijayakumaran,        ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 202/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Sunny Raj, Green Land, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Prameela @ Kunjumol,                 ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 203/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. A.M. Rize, Kanavu, Kottukunnam, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. M.T. Beena,              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 204/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Balakrishnan, Kavitha Bhavan, Nellanadu P.O, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Jayasree,                    ..do..           ..do..
3. Athul,                        ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 205/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Dhanya, Dhanya Bhavan, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Dhanesh,                             ..do..           ..do..
3. Divya,                                 ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 206/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. G. Krishna Pillai, Krishnalayam, Ganapathiyamkadu, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Lekha. S,                   ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 207/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. L. Rema, Pulikmootil Veedu, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Jithu. J.R,                  ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 208/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainant:

Saji Kumar, Kunnil Keezhathil Veedu, Perumpazhuthoor, Perumpazhuthoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 209/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Radhakrishnan Achari, Pulimootil Veedu, Kottukunnam, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Latha,                         ..do..           ..do..
3. Anchana,                   ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 210/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. K. Rajan, Sreemangalam, Vayyatte, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Lekha,              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 211/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Suresh Kumar, Sreedevi Bhavan, Keezhayikonam, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Leelamani,                 ..do..           ..do..
3. Sreedevi,                    ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 212/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Mohammed Basheer, Muneer Manzil, Mamood, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Sajitha Beevi,            ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 213/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. K. Sasidharan Nair, E.V House, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Sunitha,           ..do..           ..do..
3. Arathi,              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 214/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Mahesh, Chilambil Puthen Veedu, Venchavodu, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Suma,              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 215/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. G. Madhu, Rohini, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Latha S, Nair,            ..do..           ..do..
3. Swathi. M.L,              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 216/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. K. Soman, Valiyaveedu, Vayyatte, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Saraswathi Amma,              ..do..           ..do..
3. Kaveri,                                ..do..           ..do..
4. Gayathri,                              ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 217/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. H.M. Hashim, Vilayil Veedu, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Nazeema,                   ..do..           ..do..
3. Rubiya @ Manichy,   ..do..           ..do..
4. Rubin,                       ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 218/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Prof. A. Ashraf, Akshara, Puthoor, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Seenath,           ..do..           ..do..
3. A. Sherin,        ..do..           ..do..
4. A. Shefin                   ..do..           ..do..
5. Roshan,           ..do..           ..do..
6. Safdar,             ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 219/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. M.H. Noushad, H.L. Flat, Poovathumkavu, Kallara P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Suharban,                  ..do..           ..do..
3. Anjala,                      ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 220/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Mohandas, Vaishnavam, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Jayasree. B.S,            ..do..           ..do..
3. Krishna. M.J,            ..do..           ..do..
4. Vishnu. M.J,             ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 221/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainant:

V.S. Biju Kumar, S.V. Nivas, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 222/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainant:

K. Hari, Kuzhivila Veedu, Sabarmathi Lane, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 223/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. A.M. Riza, Riza Manzil, Kottukunnam P.O, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. S. Sheena,                 ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 224/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Shamsudeen, Sijin Villa, Perumkulam P.O, Mananakku, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Sajeena,           ..do..           ..do..
3. Ajin,                 ..do..           ..do..
4. Ajmi,               ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 225/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Sivaprasad, Three S Bhavan, Sabarmathi Lane, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Sathija,             ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 226/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainant:

Sivakumar, Three S Bhavan, Sabarmathi Lane, Venjaramoodu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

O.P. No. 227/2005 Filed on 25.06.2005

ORDER DATED: 30.05.2018

Complainants:

1. Jayan, J.M. Villa, Kavara, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Mini,                ..do..           ..do..

(By Adv. J.K. Ajith Prasad)

Opposite party:

Sabeer Khan, Proprietor, Andavar Travels, Mamom, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

This case having been heard on 15.03.2018, the Forum on 30.05.2018 delivered the following:

COMMON ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

In this case a joint trial was ordered as per I.A No. 168/2008 taking O.P 201/2005 as the principal case. 

The gist of the complainant’s case is as follows:  All the complainants in O.P. No. 190/2005 to O.P No. 227/2005 (total 98 persons) organized a five days’ tour from 24.12.2004 to 28.12.2004 and for that purpose they elected the 1^st complainant in O.P 203/2005 as their tour manager and authorized him to enter into an agreement with the opposite party for the supply of latest model Air Buses for the said tour.  Thus the 1^st complainant in O.P No. 203/2005 went to the office of the opposite party on 11.09.2004 and 20.09.2004 and entered two agreements with the opposite party on behalf of the total complainants by paying an advance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- each on both days.  The specific agreement between the 1^st complainant in O.P No. 203/2005 and the opposite party was that the opposite party would send two latest model Air Buses of seating capacity 49 passengers each to Venjaramoodu junction on 24.12.2004 at 3.30 pm for five days tour which ends on the mid night of 28.12.2004.  Thereafter on 22.12.2004 the opposite party demanded an additional advance of Rs. 7,000/- and the 1^st complainant in O.P No. 203/2005 remitted the said amount in the bank account of the opposite party on the same day itself.  From the day of booking of the Air Buses itself the complainants were regularly enquiring about the air buses to which the opposite party replied very positively.  On 23.12.2004 the 1^st complainant in O.P No. 203/2005 contacted the opposite party over phone and the opposite party assured him that the air buses are ready and will reach Venjaramoodu Junction at 3.30 pm on 24.12.2004.  On 24.12.2004 at 3.30 pm on not seeing the air buses the complainants contacted the opposite party over phone and he informed them that the air buses are on the way.  Thereafter till about 4.30 pm the complainants contacted the opposite party several times over phone to which he gave the very same answer.  At 4.30 pm two ordinary buses bearing Reg. Nos. KL14 C 5091 and KL 04 G 3 reached Venjaramoodu.  The condition of both the buses was very worse.  The seats were ordinary and not push back, there were television sets in both the buses but were not working.  There was no DVD, VCD, Video Cassette player or audio cassette player.  The seats were not even having foot rests and bus No. KL 14 C 5091 was not having two side glasses.  The condition of the buses was very worse and the complainants and friends demanded the opposite party to give Air buses as per the agreement to which the opposite party said lame excuses.  Thereafter the complainant and his friends tried their level best to arrange another buses but being Christmas vacation time all buses were early booked and no buses were available.  All the 98 complainants were in big trouble and more over as they have arranged 5 days for the tour for which they have shifted all their programmes and thus complainants  were compelled to go for tour in the opposite party’s dilapidated buses.  At this time complainants understood that the opposite party had purposefully deceived them and cheated them.  Thus the tour began at about 5.30 pm on 24.12.2004 and both the buses reached Indian Oil Corporation Petrol pump at Attingal and both the buses filled full tank diesel at the expense of the complainants.  Thereafter both the buses halted near S.R. Theatre, Attingal and the opposite party came there and demanded Rs. 10,000/- more as advance and there occurred some bad scenes and exchange of hot words and the 1^st complainant in O.P No. 203/2005 gave the opposite party Rs. 5,000/-.  At this time it came to notice of the complainants that the diesel tank of bus No. KL 14 C 5091 is leaking and by using bar soap the leak was somehow managed and the journey started.  The opposite party cheated the complainants and moreover behaved in a very indifferent and indecent manner which wounded all the 98 complainants.  On reaching Paripally both the buses halted and both the drivers went away.  After about one hour both the drivers came back and informed that the driver of bus No. KL 14 C 5091 was asked by the opposite party only to take the bus to Paripally and another driver will be waiting there and from there that driver will take the bus for tour.  The drivers as well as the complainants tired to contact the opposite party but they were not able to, why because the opposite party has purposefully switched off his mobile phone and made engaged his office and residence phones as a part of foul play.  The drivers were helpless and the driver of bus No. KL 14 C 5091 started the 5 days journey only with the dress he was wearing.  The driver of another bus also informed that he was only informed by the opposite party that there is only a single day’s trip.  Thus the drivers had no other way except to heed to the request of the complainants to start the journey.  Thus the journey again started by the very same drivers as against the usual practice of providing one additional driver each in such long journeys.  On reaching Karunagappally the radiator of bus No. KL 14 C 5091 started leaking and that vehicle had to halt after every almost 15 km for filling water in radiator.  The tour being organized jointly the passengers of the other bus also had to suffer all these incidents and both the vehicles reached Kozhikkode very late at 7 am on 25.12.2004.  At 9 am again the journey started after a small halt at Kozhikode.  In the afternoon all reached Sulthan Bathery and on the way to Edakkal Cave the bus No. KL 14 C 5091 fell on the way due to damage of clutch.  The passengers of bus No. KL 04 G 3 went to Edakkal Cave and the passengers of the other bus were not able to see the Edakkal cave.  The bus No. KL 14 C 5091 was taken to A.L. Auto Garage, Sulthan Bathery and being Christmas day there were no one in the workshop and the complainants wandered here and there in search of a mechanic and at about 8 pm they were able to find a mechanic and rectified the damage and took the vehicle to the tourist home where the complainants halted.  On 26.12.2004 at 7.30 am all of them started from Sulthan Bathery to Mysore via Muthanga.   All of them had an idea to visit Muthanga Forest and for that purpose they had obtained permission from the forest authorities long back.  For that purpose they reached Muthanga Forest Office and paid the requisite visiting fees and vehicle fees and got on the vehicles.  At this time bus No. KL 14 C 5091 again sustained clutch failure and fell there and some of the persons got on to the other bus and others took 4 jeeps on hire for seeing the Muthanga Forest at Rs. 1,000/-. The forest road was very dusty and the bus without two side glasses was filled inside with dust and that was the same with the travelers of the jeep and they all suffered a lot and all sustained lungs and throat infection.  Anyhow they all came back after seeing the forest and by the time the driver of the bus No. KL 14 C 5091 was able to somehow manage the vehicle and all of them started to Mysore at 9.30 am.  On travelling about 30 km from there the back right side tyre of the bus No. KL 14 C 5091 became puncture.  That tyre was replaced and at about 2 pm all reached Mysore and had lunch and again got on the vehicle.  At this time the clutch of bus No. KL 14 C 5091 became completely failed and the bus fell down on the heart of the city and all the traffic systems of Mysore city was jammed due to this vehicle.  Almost all of the persons accumulated there showered filthy language and the traffic police and passengers of other vehicles also used filthy language towards the complainants.  All of them were very angry and were asking the complainants from where they got this broken down and useless vehicle.  All the passengers had to get down and was compelled to push the vehicle for almost half a kilometer to avoid the traffic jam.  This caused huge mental pain on the complainants.  Thereafter two mechanics were brought and they somehow managed to take the bus to the workshop.  All the persons including children and ladies had to wait there for hours expecting the bus, but the complaint was not rectified and in the meantime some unwanted criminal elements started to disturb the ladies.  It became almost night and the complainants and friends were compelled to hire autos to reach the lodging place which was about 5 km away.  They hired 14 autos and on reaching the lodging place it come to understand that two autos in which only ladies were travelling were missing.  It gave great tension and pressure on the other members and these two autos reached there almost after one hour.  What happened was the auto drivers were not familiar with the lodging place and they were wandering here and there asking others regarding the lodging place.  Due to lack of Kannada language and ladies doubted that the auto drivers are trying to sell them and they started crying and shouting and many locality peoples intervened and at last the ladies were taken to the lodging place and there happened such an intolerable scene.  The husband of one of the ladies is a heart patient and his condition became very worse by that time.  Thus the total programmes of 25^th and 26^th were totally flopped by the broken down vehicle and complainants were not even able to see the Mysore Vrindavan Garden.  The plan of the complainants was to reach Ootty by noon of 27.12.2004.  By the evening of 27.12.2004 only they were able to travel to Ootty.  When the vehicle passed Gundalpet and entered Bandipur Forest the brake liner of bus No. KL 14 C 5091 became jammed and smoke and fire came out from the back right side.  All the passengers were of the feeling that the vehicle is on fire and all rushed out of the vehicle and has sustained injuries also.  Both the buses had to halt there in that dangerous Bandipur forest.  The complainants including ladies and children had to be in that horrible dangerous forest fearing attack of wild elephants and other carnivorous animals and dacoits for almost an hour.  Due to all these the complainants were able to reach Ootty only by 2.30 am of 28.12.2004 in spite of 2 pm of 27.12.2004.  Being reached Ootty by 2.30 am no members of the team were able to consume food why because the food which had already been arranged in the hotel was good for nothing.  After seeing some places of Ootty all of them started to Coimbatore on 28.12.2004 at about 4 pm and reached Coimbatore at about 8 pm.  From Coimbatore again the journey started at 10 pm to Venjaramoodu and at 1.30 pm when it reached South Edappally another tyre of vehicle No. KL 14 C 5091 became puncture and it took almost one hour for replacing that tyre and the vehicle reached Venjaramoodu at 7.30 am on 29.12.2004.  Another horrible aspect was that both the vehicles were having very low turning radius and had to move the buses to and fro many times in the hair pin turnings of Ootty and Sulthan Bathery.  This incident shocked all the passengers and they all were praying at all these times.  Moreover the cleaner of the vehicle No. KL 14 C 5091 was a boy and was having no experience in the field and thus it took a lot of time to manage the vehicle at heavy traffic junctions and caused inconvenience to the passengers of other vehicles also.  Moreover when such a tour is arranged there will be additional one driver also in every bus and in the opposite party’s vehicles there was only one driver each.  Both the buses were having starting trouble due to poor battery and bus No. KL 14 C 5091 was having poor brake and when the vehicle had to stop at steep roads the male members of the complainants had to jump out of the vehicle with wooden pieces to place it beneath the tyres.  This vehicle was also having gear problem.  On several occasions the complainants and the drivers contacted the opposite party over phone and informed him the conditions of the buses and demanded to arrange another bus to which the opposite party replied negatively.  By all above mentioned incidents which were caused by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party the complainants sustained huge mental as well as physical agony and financial loss.  The complainants had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 49,450/- for both the buses including diesel, workshop, permit and daily expenses of drivers and cleaners excluding an amount of Rs. 14,000/- which the opposite party had received earlier.  Complainants intended a pleasure trip but what resulted was a shocking night mare due to the deficiency of service and foul play of the opposite party.  The specific agreement with the opposite party and complainants was that the opposite party would send two latest model air buses from 3.30 pm of 24.12.2004 to night of 28.12.2004 at a cost of Rs. 62,000/-.  The complainants incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 63,450/- towards the opposite party and his buses.  The opposite party had a fraudulent intention right from the beginning of the booking of the buses itself.  The above buses were offered to the complainants by the opposite party right at the time he went for booking the air buses to which he refused and insisted latest model air buses.  Thus at the time of booking of the air buses itself the opposite party had an intention to play fraud on the complainants and to give them local buses instead of modern air buses at the time of tour and the complainants will be having no option except to go on tour in those buses and the opposite party can make unlawful gain.  The opposite party was well aware that all the above incidents and more would happen if such a five days’ tour is operated in those buses.  The complainants who travelled in bus No. KL 14 C 5091 are entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each as compensation for the financial loss and sufferings and mental and physical pain due to the foul play and deficiency in service of the opposite party.  The complainants who travelled in bus No. KL 4 G 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- each as compensation for the financial loss and sufferings and mental and physical pain due to the foul play and deficiency in service of the opposite party.  The complainants had sent a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party on 19.01.2005 demanding the compensation, which was received by the opposite party on 24.02.2005 and has not paid any compensation or any reply to the notice and hence this complaint was necessitated. 

The contention taken by the opposite party in the version is that it is true that Mr. A.M Rize had booked 2 Air bus for 5 days tour from 24.12.2004 to 28.12.2004 and the opposite party had also provided 2 Air bus for the journey.  There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party.  The complainants are not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint.  The 38 number of complaints filed in respect of the incident at the instance of Mr. A.M. Rize is intended to obtain unjust enrichment by gross abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum.  The complainants had no locus standi to prefer a complaint before this Forum as there is not privity of contract between the complainants and the opposite party.  Moreover the complainants are not at all a consumer of the opposite party.  There was no agreement between the opposite party and the complainants as alleged in the complaint.  It is true that one Mr. A.M. Rize had booked two Air buses for five days tour programme and vehicles were also provided as per agreement.  Opposite party had sent two Air buses in time for the journey.  Opposite party had sent two Air buses bearing Reg. No. KL 14 C 5091 and KL-04 G 3.  The buses were in very good condition and roadworthy.  The aforesaid buses were provided with television, VCD player etc. and the same were in good working condition also.  The seats were also conforming to the Air bus with foot rest and also with well furnished side glasses.  The allegations to the contrary are incorrect and hence denied. Complainants and their friends never demanded for providing any other buses as alleged.  This opposite party had never purposefully deceived or cheated the complainants.  The accountant that the tour manager gave the opposite party Rs. 5,000/- is absolutely incorrect and hence denied.  There was no notice of any leakage as alleged by the complainants.  The averment that the complainants managed to stop the leakage using bar soap is false and imaginary and the opposite party never behaved in any indecent manner as alleged in the complaint.  There was no usual practice of providing any additional driver in each bus in long trip.  The averment that there is usual practice of providing one additional driver in long route journeys is not correct and hence denied.  There was leakage in the radiator of the bus is not correct and hence denied.  It is true that the bus No. KL 14 C 5091 fell on the way due to damage of its clutch and was taken to AC Auto Garage, Sulthan Bathery and rectified the same and it was occasioned only in unforeseen conditions.  There was no clutch failure as alleged or there was no cause of traffic jam.  The allegation that the complainants and his friends had hired autos is also incorrect and there was no reason for any tension and pressure as alleged.  There was no causing of any smoke or fire from the bus as alleged.  The allegation that the complainant along with their friends including ladies and children had to be in the horrible dangerous forest fearing the attack of wild animals and dacoits is imaginary, false and hence denied.  Complaint that the food arranged in the hotel was good for nothing is false and hence denied.  It was not the part of service of the opposite party to arrange for food to the passengers.  While riding through hair pin turnings of Ootty and Sulthan Bathery, the buses usually had to move to and fro many times and hence there is nothing unusual in the same.  Complaint that the buses were having starting trouble and were having poor break was absolutely incorrect.  The allegation that on several occasion the complainants and drivers contacted the opposite party was also incorrect.  The complainants and their friends had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 49,450/- for both the buses including diesel, workshop etc. are absolutely incorrect, unbelievable and hence denied.  The allegation in the complaint that the opposite party committed deficiency in service and foul play is false and hence denied.  Even though the total amount for the journey was fixed as Rs. 62,000/- this opposite party had not received the full amount as agreed.  The allegation that the complainant and friend had incurred a total amount of Rs. 63,480/- towards the opposite party is also incorrect and it is with an intention to evade from making the balance payment due to the opposite party, the complainant and his friends filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint.  

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- 1^st complainant in O.P 201/2005 filed chief examination affidavit on behalf of complainants in O.P 190/2005 to 200/2005 and 202/2005 to 227/2005 and examined as PW1.  Exts. P1 to P10 marked.  PW1 cross examined by opposite party.  Complainant in O.P 203/2005 was examined as PW2.  PW2 cross examined by opposite party.  Complainant in O.P 207/2005 was examined as PW3 (mentioned as PW1 in deposition of O.P 201/2005).  PW3 cross examined by opposite party.  Commissioner was examined as CW1 and Ext. C1 marked.  Opposite party was examined as DW1.  DW1 cross examined by complainant. 

The main issue before this Forum is that whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  As per Ext. P1 & P2 the bus booked is Air Bus with 49 seating capacity. Air Bus means bus with air suspension.  The opposite party’s argument is that opposite party has admitted the booking that Mr. A.M. Rize the complainant in O.P 203/2005 had booked two buses for five days tour programme with the opposite party.  The other 38 number of complainants have no agreement with them.  The 5 days tour was from 24.12.2004 and they had provided the buses for the journey as per the agreement.  Mr. A.M. Rize had booked the buses on two different days i.e on 11.09.2004 and 26.09.2004.  He alone was present at the time of booking on these days and the statements that Advocate Vijayakumar was also present on these days are false.  There is also contradiction in the sworn statement of both Vijayakumaran and Mr. A.M. Rize regarding this aspect.  That 38 number of complaints filed in respect of the incident is at the instance of Mr. A.M Rize.  It is filed only with an intention to obtain unjust enrichment by gross abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum.  That is the reason why no other complainants except Advocate Vijayakumaran and Smt. Remadevi, the complainants in O.P 201/2005 and 207/2005 respectively came and depose about their grievance before this Forum.  That the authorization dated 04.07.2009 authorizing Sri. S. Vijayakumaran and Sri. A.M. Rize to give evidence on behalf of other complaints is forged and fabricated one.  The complainant in O.P 207/2005 Smt. Rema. L has deposed that she gave authorization only at the time of filing the complaint during 2005 and that she had not given any other authorization to anybody afterwards.  This itself proves that all the authorizations produced on 4^th July 2009 are fabricated.  This is a gross abuse of process of law.  Opposite party had provided the latest model buses to Venjaramoodu Junction with seating capacity of 49 passengers each on 24.12.2004 at 3.30 pm itself as per the agreement.  The allegation that the buses reported late by one hour is utter false.  The two buses provided were of very good condition and roadworthy.  The aforesaid buses were provided with television, V.C.P player etc. and same were in good working condition.  It was having foot rest and also that the side glasses were intact and well furnished.  It is true that the seats were not push back, but it was very comfortable to be seated.  As admitted Mr. A.M. Rize the Tour Manager had booked only two buses with seating capacity of 49 seats each to accommodate 98 passengers.  To accommodate 98 passengers in two buses, it is impossible to provide buses with push back seats.  If the opposite party provides buses with push back seats it will accommodate only 36 passengers in each buses as the seating capacity with push back seat is only 36 seats.  Vehicles fitted with air suspension system are named as Air Buses and it has nothing to do with the mechanical condition of buses which they provided.  Both the buses were fully roadworthy in all respects.  The buses were mechanically in sound position and it had no defects whatsoever.  Both the buses were tested for fitness certificate on the day of the tour (24.12.2004) before the Regional Transport Authority at Attingal and were issued with fitness certificate for the period from 24.12.2004 to 23.12.2005.  All the complainants used these vehicles, without any complaint whatsoever at the time of taking the journey.  The complainants had filed a commission application to note whether there is any mechanical defects for the buses and accordingly a commissioner was appointed.  The commissioner had inspected the vehicle and filed the report along with photographs and certificate etc. stating therein that the buses were roadworthy and were in good condition.  Within two days of this tour, the same buses had gone for another tour without any complaint.  This shows that these buses were roadworthy.  Copy of the said trip schedule was marked as Ext. D1.  It is true that the bus No. KL 14 C 5091 fell on the way at High range area of Sulthan Bathery due to damage of its clutch and was taken to A.L Auto Garage, Sulthan Bathery and rectified the same.  Damage to clutch can happen while driving through high ranges like Sulthan Bathery.  It doesn’t means that the bus was having mechanical fault during starting of the journey.  It was occasioned only in unforeseen conditions.  As per the terms of the agreement it is stated that opposite party is not responsible if any mechanical problem occurred to the vehicle at the course of journey.  Complainants had to hire jeeps for seeing Muthanga Forest.  The Forest Officials will not allow heavy vehicle to go through forest area.  The only option is to hire jeeps for seeing the forest.  Like all the tourist the passengers/complainants had voluntarily hired the jeeps as per the instruction given by the Forest Officers and the opposite party has no say in this regard.  While riding through hair pin turning of Ootty and Sulthan Bathery big buses usually had to move to and many times and hence there is nothing unusual in the same.  The statement that the buses were having starting trouble and were having poor break is absolutely false and incorrect.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The only mechanical problem during the whole journey was the failure of clutch to Bus No. KL 14 C 5091, while traveling through high ranges of Sulthan Bathery.  It was occasioned only in unforeseen conditions.  The bus bearing No. KL04 G 3 was not having any fault whatsoever.  The above problem can occur to the vehicle at the course of journey through high ranges.  The complainants should not have used the vehicle if the supplied vehicles were entirely different as against the offered vehicle or that if there was any defect (not admitted) in the vehicles.  Since the complainants used the vehicles it shows that the vehicles provided were having no defects at all.  The complainants had spent a total sum of Rs. 28,515/- including Rs. 9,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- + 7000) which they gave to the opposite party before the start of the journey (Rs. 2,000/- was given as advance amount and Rs. 7000/- was deposited by A.M. Rize in the opposite party’s account. The total amount for the journey was fixed at Rs. 62,000/- for two buses (Rs. 30500 + 31500) the opposite party had received only Rs. 28,515/-.  Balance amount of Rs. 33,485/- is still due from the complainants.  The allegation that the complainant and friends had incurred expenses a total amount of Rs. 63,480/- is incorrect and is not supported by any evidence.  Argument of the complainant is that all the 98 complainants are family friends and they intended to arrange a family tour for five days during Christmas vacation of 2004.  All these 98 persons gathered and for the purpose of arranging all the facilities for the tour selected one among them as the tour manager.  That tour manager is the 1^st complainant in OP 203/2005.  He was examined before this Forum as PW2.  This tour manager as per the direction from all the complainants entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the supply of two latest model air buses of seating capacity 49 each for the five days tour from 24.12.2004 at 3.30 pm to mid night of 28.12.2004.  That agreement entered between the tour manager who is the 1^st complainant in O.P 203/2005 is marked as Exts. P1 & P2.  In spite of supplying two latest model Air buses of 49 seating capacity the opposite party purposefully intentionally and more deliberately sent two ordinary buses of very poor condition for the five days tour and that too through high range forest area.  These buses were sent purposefully by the opposite party very late than the time fixed for starting the tours.  The buses were not suitable in any manner for the tour.  Being Christmas Holiday the complainants were not able to get any other buses.  The complainants had arranged everything for the tour and had shifted all their five days programme and had left their house for the tour and had gathered at the boarding place at Venjaramoodu Junction for the tour and thus was constrained to go for the tour in those dilapidated buses.  The incidents happened due to the supply of dilapidated buses in spite of the very specific Exts. P1 and P2 agreements for supplying two latest model Air buses put the complainants in much loss and sufferings which could not be deserted by words and had paved way for instituting these 38 cases individually by the complainants.  The registration number of the two ordinary buses supplied by the opposite party are KL 14 C 5091 and KL 04 G 3.  Complainants in OP 190/2005 to 209/2005 are persons who travelled in KL 14 C 5091 and complainants in O.P 210/2005 to 227/2005 are persons who travelled in bus No. KL 04 G 3.  The difficulty faced by the complainants in both the buses are different and thus the complainants who travelled in bus No. KL 14 C 5091 is claiming an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each per head and complainants who travelled in bus No. KL 04 G 3 is claiming an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per head.  In fact the tour became a night mare for all the complainants due to the very purposeful act of dereliction of duty and unfair trade practice of the opposite party in not supplying latest model Air buses in violation of the very specific written agreement.  The expert commissioner was also examined through whom Ext. C1 was re-affirmed.  Accordingly all the families shared some fund for the common expense with which Mr. A.M. Rize entered Ext. P1 & P2 agreements for the supply of latest model Air buses with 49 seating capacity each.  So also he had booked lodging facilities on each and every point the complainants intended to stay during that tour.  So also he had made arrangements in the lodging places to provide food to the participants.  Thus Mr. A.M Rize had arranged each and every thing which is possible for making the tour programme splendid by effective payment through money orders and bank transfer of funds.  Thus a good amount was spent for the same and all the 98 persons who are particularly engaged in various fields and are busy with several programmes took a total leave for five days by arranging each and every programme and made all he arrangements for 5 days tour and packed each and every necessary things for the tour and gathered at Venjaramoodu on 24.12.2004 at 3.30 pm waiting for the two latest model Air buses as undertaken by the opposite party by Ext. P1 and P2 agreements.  On not seeing the buses the complainants contacted the opposite party several times and at last at 4.30 pm two ordinary buses bearing Reg. No. KL 14 C 5091 and KL 04 G 3 reached Venjaramoodu.  The condition of both these buses were very worse.  The seats were not push back and were ordinary not suitable in any manner for a 5 days journey.  The television sets in both the buses were not working and there was no DVD, VCD, Video cassette player or audio cassette player.  The seats were not having even any foot rests and bus No. KL 14 C 5091 was not having three side glasses and were with poor tires.  Bus No. KL 04 G 3 was not having two side glasses.  The condition of both the buses were very worse and thus the complainant demanded the opposite party to provide Air buses as agreed to which he said blind excuses.  The complainants tried their level best to arrange another bus but being Christmas vacation time all the buses were early booked and thus no buses were available.  All these 98 person were put in big trouble and moreover they had shifted all their programmes for the 5 days tour and had no alternative than to go for the tour in the dilapidated bus of the opposite party.  The expert commissioner who was appointed to inspect both the buses and to report whether those buses are air buses never filed a report as directed by this Forum.  He went ultra virus in questioning the complainants, witnesses and raising issues and pronouncing a judgment to the effect that the complainant had suffered all these only because they went for a tour and during tour programmes such incidents may happen.  The expert commissioner was not able to inspect KL 14 C 5091.  He was only able to inspect KL 04 G 3.  In page No. 5 of his cross examination he had very specifically stated in line Nos. 4, 5 & 6 that the buses were ordinary contract carriers with no modern vehicle facilities.  He even very purposefully did not prepare a mahazar regarding that vehicle.  This was very purposefully done by him because of the understanding between bus owners and Motor Vehicle inspectors.  The expert commission was a Motor Vehicle Inspector.  He along with the report had produced some photocopy showing that both the vehicles were having fitness certificate.  In his cross examination in page 10 lines 5, 6 & 7 he had very clearly stated that both buses were not Air buses.  He had also produced some photos of the vehicles in which in very big letters it is written ‘Air Car’ in the ordinary vehicle. The expert commissioner very purposefully excluded that matter also from his report and further he do not even know what an ‘Air Car’ means.  In Ext. C1 expert has stated that the vehicle found is an ordinary contract carriage with leaf spring as suspension system. 

Considering the evidence before this Forum in Ext. P1 and P2 it is seen that bus booked is Air bus- 49 seater.  Nowhere in Ext. P1 & P2 agreement mentioning of latest model Air bus with modern facility.  Complainant has no case that opposite party having Air bus and instead of Air Bus sent ordinary bus.  PW2 has no case that he has seen Air bus with opposite party at the time of booking.  So the statement of latest model Air bus with modern facility is not digestible.  Anyhow as per Ext. P1 & P2 opposite party offered Air bus but the bus sent was ordinary bus with leaf suspension and thereby the 98 passengers i.e; complainants suffered mental agony for the 5 days of their tour.   Considering the sufferings of the complainants brought out from the documents and evidence we are of the opinion that opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs. 6,000/- each for each complainants in O.P 190/2005 to 209/2005 and Rs. 5,000/- each for each complainants in O.P 210/2005 to 227/2005 for the mental agony suffered by them and Rs. 2,000/- each for each case (O.P 190/2005 to 227/2005).

In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) each for each complainants in O.P 190/2005 to 209/2005 and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each for each complainants in O.P 210/2005 to 227/2005 for the mental agony suffered by them and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each for each case (O.P 190/2005 to 227/2005) within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the compensation amount alone will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of default till realization.    

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 30^th day of May 2018.      

        Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 201/2005

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Vijayakumaran. S

          PW2  - Rize. A.M

          PW1  - Remadevi. L

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Agreement form dated 11.09.2004

P2     - Agreement Form dated 20.09.2004.

P3     - Receipt dated 26.12.2004.

P3(a) - Receipt dated 26.12.2004

P4     - Special permit

P4(a) - Special permit

P4(b) - Receipt issued by Gundlupet Check Post

P4(c) - Receipt issued by Gundlupet Check Post

P5(a) - Copy of cash bill dated 25.12.2004.

P5(b)(c)(d)  - Copy of cash bills

P6     - Copy of cash bill

P6(a)(b)(c)(d)- Copy of cash bills

P7     - Statement

P8     - Copy of advocate notice

P9     - Postal receipt

P10   - Acknowledgement card

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Sabeer Khan. M

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

  V     COURT EXHIBIT :

          CW1 - N. Ganeshan

          C1     - Commission Report

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb