IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of May, 2011
Filed on 25.03.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.82/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Biju Kuttappan 1. Sri. Sunod, Payyampally
Thekkepolayil Thekkemuri, Nedumudi
Sanadanam Ward
Alappuzha – 688 001 2. Sri. Rajeev, Karthyayani
(By Adv. B. Somanadha Kurup) Bhavan, Ponga, Nedumudi
(By Adv. Praseed.S.)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Biju Kuttappan has filed this complaint on 25.03.2010 before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations of the complainant can be briefly stated as follows:- In order to conduct a tour journey on 09.01.2010 and 10.01.2010 to Trivandrum, Ponmudi and Kanyakumari; he along with his friend Sri. Jayakumar has conducted an oral agreement with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.7500/- for a video coach vehicle. At that time, they had intimated the opposite parties that the vehicle will have the seating capacity of 20 persons and having video facility. The opposite parties agreed that the vehicle will be ready to journey on 9.1.2010, at the residence of said Jayakumar. But, on 9.1.2010 morning, the vehicle bearing No.KL4/Y-6489 - “Lake Lane” – Mahindra Tourists owned by the first opposite party, having the defective TV set and other equipments sent for the journey. The said vehicle have not the facility 20 seats capacity. When contacted 2nd opposite party Sri.Rajeev, he had stated that the booked vehicle has give to another journey and requested to co-operative with that alternate vehicle sent to their journey. Since there was no time to arrange another vehicle having sufficient space, for the said journey, they have forced to travel in that in an uncomfortable way. Due to the non- remittance of tax payable to the vehicle department, the running of the said vehicle was objected by the officials of Amaravila check post, and denied the permit to run further. They have spent nearly 3 hours in the check post. The driver of the vehicle contacted the opposite party and explained the matter. But the 2nd opposite party had directed to arrange another vehicle for further journey. When intimated the difficulties to the 2nd opposite party regarding permit, he suggested to take another route to Kanyakumari. Considering their difficulties, the check post officials at last permitted to proceed without giving sanction permit. The driver opted interior places for further journey in order to avoid further check up by other officials of the check post. Due to the above incidence they could not visit more places planned earlier and reached Kanyakumari in delay. Even though they have sustained a lot of inconvenience, they paid Rs.6000/- to the driver after retaining a sum of Rs.1500/- with them. But the opposite party had behaved in a rude way regarding the amount, and filed a petition before the Police Station and paid the amount of Rs.1500/- subsequently and opposite parties had not considered their difficulties sustained in the said journey. Hence this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the parties. First opposite party entered appearance and filed objection by his Advocate and 2nd opposite party absent. Notice to the 2nd opposite party returned with endorsement “unclaimed”. So 2nd opposite party declared as exparte.
3. In the objection filed by the Advocate of the first opposite party, it is stated that the petition lacks bonafides, and the subject matter of the case will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant is not a consumer. It is stated that he had no knowledge about the places of visit and the details of the amount for the charge of the vehicle and he was not involved in the agreement between the complainant. He had arranged the vehicle for the journey and had agreed for a sum of Rs.7500/- which was admitted by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had intimated him that he will arrange the further matters of this journey with the complainant. When they reached in the check post, the authorities had permitted them to proceed further. The allegations of the complainant are false regarding the stay in the check post and deviation of route. It is further stated that the complainant and other passengers have visited the places at Kanyakumari and returned after seeing the places as per schedule of the said journey. When they were reached in Nedumudy, the complainant had entrusted only Rs.6000/- to him and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1500/- within days. But the complainant had not paid the balance amount of Rs.1500/- as agreed. So he filed a petition before the Nedumudi Police Station for setting the amount of Rs.1500/-. He obtained the said amount in the presence of the S.I. of Police and issued receipt for the total amount.
4. Considering the disputes of both parties, the Forum raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite
parties?
3) Regarding the cots of this proceedings.
5. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence – Ext.A1 marked. He has been cross examined by the first opposite party. Ext.A1 is the receipt of Rs.7500/- executed by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant. It shows that the first opposite party had earlier received a sum of Rs.6000/- (ie. on 10.1.2010) and a sum of Rs.1500/- on 29.1.2010 from the complainant. First opposite party had not filed any proof affidavit or any document before the Forum. At the time of hearing the first opposite party’s counsel submitted that they have no oral evidence.
6. We have examined the matter involved in this case in detail and perused the document submitted by the complainant in evidence. It is alleged that the 2nd opposite party had entered into an agreement with Sri.Jayakumar and the complaint regarding the details of the said tour programme and fixed an amount of Rs.7500/- as charges of the vehicle. It is alleged by the complainant that due to the non-availability of the booked video coach vehicle, the second opposite party sent a vehicle bearing No.KL 4/7/6489-Mahindra Tourister owned by the first opposite party and the said vehicle has not the required seating capacity of 20. It is further alleged that the said vehicle has the defective TV set and other equipment. It is alleged that the journey of the complainant and other ladies passengers and children have sustained a lot of inconvenience due to the absence of required seat on the said vehicle. In addition to this, further journey of the said vehicle from the Amaravila check post was objected by the check post officers due to the non-remittance of required tax for the said vehicle and the complainant and other passengers were spent several hours in the check post without food and water. The complainant and driver of the vehicle had informed the matter to the second opposite party through phone. But the second opposite party had directed driver of the vehicle to arrange another vehicle for the further journey. But they have proceed further without any route permit through alterative road in order to avoid further check up. So, in ordinate delay occurred to reach Kanyakumari. They could not visit certain other places including Ponmudi, due to the matter of permit of the said vehicle.
7. On a verification of the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view, that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties by way of violation of agreement to send the booked video coach having the capacity of 20 seats. Instead of sending the above said vehicle, the 2nd opposite party had sent another vehicle bearing No.KL4/ 7/6489 with fitting of defective TV set and other equipments. It is alleged that the said vehicle has no rout permit to run outside Kerala. So the check post authorities had not permitted the concerned vehicle to proceed further. Due to this, the vehicle was in the check post for three hours and the complainant and other passengers in the tour had suffered a lot of inconvenience. The complainant and other passengers could not visit certain other areas as per the tour. The entire action of the opposite parties comes within the purview of deficiency in service and negligence and unfair trade practice. For this, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are fully liable to pay compensation and cost to the complainant. The objection raised by the first opposite party cannot be accepted as a valid reason against the allegations of the complainant, since it has no bona fides and have no merit. Without considering the inconvenience of the complainant, their harassment and loss, the first opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.7500/- by way of vehicle charges from the complainant. The first opposite party is bound to consider the inconvenience, and hardships caused due to the said travel of the complainant and others. But in this case, the opposite parties shave taken a negligence view in settling the case. It is further noticed that the 2nd opposite party, who have agreed to send the booked vehicle to the said journey have not appeared before Forum in order to explain the details of the case. This shows the irresponsible attitude of the 2nd opposite party in this issue. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as highly genuine. So the complaint is to be allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony, pain, sufferings, harassment, inconvenience occurred in the said journey and loss due to grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of neglecting the assurance of the 2nd opposite party to send the booked vehicle for the said journey and violated the assurance by sent a vehicle – Mahindra Tourister – having not the required seating capacity of 20, with defective TV set and other equipment and without any tax remittance and permit for interstate running of the said vehicle and committed in ordinate delay in reaching the sites as per schedule and caused unnecessary hardships to the complainant and other passengers in the team. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cots for this proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the further view that the opposite parties are liable to pay punitive costs to the complainant. Hence, we further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as punitive cost to the complainant. We ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties, in case of any default on the side of the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to him. We further ordered that the opposite parties shall comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Biju Kuttappan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt dated 29.1.10 (Photo copy)
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
