DATE OF FILING : 11.06.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.124/2010

Between

Complainant : Augustine Joseph,

Chittadiyil House,

Idukki Colony P.O,

Cheruthony,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

White Eagle Bus Service,

Kattappana P.O,

Idukki Kavala,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Prince Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant booked a tourist bus of the opposite party for participating the betrothal of his son at Kuttyadi on 11.04.2010. The booking was done for the departure from Girijyothi College on 11.04.2010 at 9 P.M. The bus which the complainant booked was having a seating capacity of 17 and the fare was Rs.15/- per kilometer. The complainant paid Rs.2,000/- as advance for the same. The complainant and his relatives were ready for the journey on the same day at the same time, but the bus was not reached there. When the complainant communicated to the opposite party, the opposite party told that they could not arrange the bus in time. After that the complainant and his relatives arranged two other vehicles in the night itself and the journey was started at 12"O clock in the night. So they were not able to take arrangements for the betrothal, and take enough rest, so suffered a lot because of the tedious journey. The complainant spent about Rs.11,000/- for arranging two other vehicles for the journey. If the vehicle of the opposite party was used for the journey it would have cost Rs.4,125/- only. So this petition is filed for getting compensation for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant and his relatives because of the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
 

After filing the written version of the opposite party, the complainant amended the petition. As per the amended petition the complainant paid Rs.16,000/- for two vehicles for the journey from Cheruthony to Kuttyadi. If the vehicle of the opposite party was used for the journey the complainant needed to pay only Rs.10,750/- for the 275 Kms. of journey. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,250/-, advance amount Rs.2,000/- with 12% interest and also compensation.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant booked the vehicle of the opposite party. But on 10.04.2010 when the vehicle was coming from Mundakkayam to Kattappana, the air conditioner of the vehicle became defective. When it was inspected in the workshop it revealed that the defect can be cured only at the authorised company workshop of the vehicle. The matter was informed to the complainant and it is also told that if the complainant is not willing to travel in the vehicle without air conditioner, the opposite party is ready to arrange another vehicle for the same. It is also told that there will be difference in the charge of the vehicle because the air conditioner was not working at that time. But the opposite party was not able to arrange another vehicle for the journey. So the same vehicle was arranged at the spot of departure at the very same time. But the complainant told that they never needed the vehicle of the opposite party because they have arranged another vehicle for the same. The opposite party was not able to cure the unexpected defect caused to the vehicle and also never arranged any other vehicle for the same. As per the conditions agreed at the time of booking, the opposite party arranged the same vehicle to the place of departure eventhough the air conditioner was not working. That is only for providing good service to the customers of the opposite party. But the complainant was adamant and not ready to travel in the vehicle without the air conditioner that the booked vehicle was not used for the journey. The opposite party has done their part without any deficiency as a prudent man can do. The taxi fare fixed for the journey was Rs.15/- per kilometer. Moreover, Rs.4,000/- was charged for the first 100 kilometers of the journey. So the complainant ought to have paid Rs.10,750/- for the 275 kilometers of the journey. So there is no loss caused to the complainant in the journey. The opposite party is having every right to change the booking date and cancel the trip after giving back the advance money if any unexpected defects causes to the vehicle. That is also mentioned in the booking form issued by the opposite party. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting compensation against the opposite party for the non-arrangement of a vehicle which was booked for the betrothal function of his son. The complainant who deposed as PW1. The complainant booked the vehicle of the opposite party for the journey from Cheruthony to Kuttyadi near Calicut in order to participate in the betrothal function of his son and paid Rs.2,000/- as advance to the opposite party at the time of booking. Ext.P1 is the order form issued by the opposite party at the time of booking. But the complainant is not aware of the exact fare. The opposite party never arranged the vehicle at the time as per the booking. So the complainant was compelled to arrange two other vehicles in the night itself and PW1 paid Rs.16,000/- as taxi fare for the same. The taxi fare of the opposite party's vehicle was only Rs.10,750/- for 275 Kms. and so the complainant caused a loss of Rs.5,250/- because of the non-availability of the vehicle. PW2 who is a taxi driver, who was driving the vehicle which hired by the complainant for the journey because of the non-availability of the opposite party's vehicle. PW2 deposed that the complainant approached him at about 10 P.M on 11.04.2010 for a trip to Kozhikode. PW2 also told that the booked vehicle was not reached in time for the journey. So they have started the trip at 12 P.M in the midnight with a Scorpio bearing Reg.No.KL-6D-9900 and received a taxi fare of Rs.8,000/- from the complainant. As per cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW2 deposed that he is not the original driver of the Scorpio vehicle. He is not aware of the taxi fare fixed by the Government for the Scorpio. He is an autorikshaw  driver. He is having driving licence and badge for driving the vehicle. PW3 is a neighbour of the complainant who also accompanied by PW1 to Kuttyadi at Kozhikode. PW3 deposed that the booked vehicle was not available at 9 P.M on 11.04.2010 and the complainant arranged two other vehicles in the night itself for the journey to Kozhikode and the journey was started at 12 P.M. The opposite party who deposed as DW1 stated that the air conditioner of the booked vehicle was became defective on 11.04.2010 and the matter was informed to the complainant. But the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-6D-9644 was arranged to the spot of departure of the journey to Kuttyadi. Because DW1 was not able to arrange another vehicle having air conditioner at that time. As per the direction of DW1, the driver of the vehicle reached at Cheruthony at 8.45 P.M on 11.04.2010. But the driver informed to DW1 that the complainant never needed the vehicle of the opposite party and so the driver returned to Kattappana. The trip sheet of the vehicle on 11.04.2010 is marked as Ext.R1. The receipt for filling diesel in the booked vehicle is marked as Ext.R2. DW1 is entitled to cancel the booking of the vehicle and also cancel the trip if any unexpected complaint causes to the vehicle. DW2 is the driver of the opposite party. DW2 also deposed that they have arranged vehicle to the spot as per the booking. At 8.30 P.M, he reached at the Petrol Pump at Cheruthony with his vehicle for filling diesel in the vehicle and reached near Girijyothi College from where the complainant decided to start the journey.

6. As per the complainant, the opposite party never arranged the vehicle on time at Girijyothi College, Cheruthony in order to start the journey to Kuttyadi. But as per the opposite party they have arranged the vehicle in time at the starting point of the journey, but the air conditioner of the vehicle was not working. The matter was also informed to the complainant. They were not able to arrange another vehicle in time and because of that the driver of the opposite party reached there with the vehicle having defect in the air conditioner. They have done the same to provide good service to the customers. As per the complaint, it is written that the complainant spent about Rs.11,000/- because of the non-availability of the vehicle of the opposite party in time. The rate fixed for the journey was Rs.15/- per Km. The complainant booked the opposite party's vehicle for an amount of Rs.4,125/- for the journey. So the complainant caused a loss of Rs.6,875/- because of the same. They suffered heavy mental pain and physical hardships because the journey was started in the midnight at 12 P.M. and so the complainant and his family could not take any arrangement for the betrothal function and also enough rest. After filing the written version of the opposite party, the complainant himself amended the complaint and it is stated that the complainant spent about Rs.16,000/- for arranging two vehicles for the journey to Kuttyadi from Cheruthony. The opposite party's vehicle was booked for an amount of Rs.10,750/-. The complainant incurred a loss of Rs.5,250/- because of the non-availability of the same. On cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant PW1 deposed that he is not aware of the exact taxi fare of the vehicle booked by him. He never paid the taxi fare as per the kilometers of the journey, a total amount was paid by him. The opposite party never informed the matter that the air conditioner was not working. PW2 is a taxi driver who deposed that he received Rs.8,000/- from the complainant. But he is also not aware of the exact taxi fare of the vehicles because he is driving autorikshaw. As per the request of the complainant, he was driving the Scorpio vehicle on that particular day. PW3, a neighbour of PW1 also deposed that the vehicle of the opposite party never reached the place of departure of journey. PW1 also deposed that it was told to the opposite party to arrange the vehicle at the place of departure at 10.30 in the morning.
 

7. So the complainant is not aware of the taxi fare of the vehicle he paid for the two vehicles he arranged in the night for his journey. No bill or no trip sheet produced by the complainant to show the fare of the vehicle he paid. As per the complaint, it is written that Rs.11,000/- was paid by him. After he amended the same as Rs.16,000/- when the opposite party disputed the same by written version. The booking fare of the vehicle was also amended after filing the written version. PW2, who is the driver of the Scorpio vehicle. But the complainant never produced any evidence to show that he has arranged two vehicles for the journey to Calicut. PW1 never tried to make the driver of the second vehicle as a witness to prove the same. So there is no evidence to prove that there is some loss caused to the complainant because of the non-availability of the vehicle booked by the complainant.

8. It is admitted by the opposite party that they have received Rs.2,000/- as booking price of the vehicle. It is also admitted by them that the vehicle was having defect in the air conditioner. So the complainant denied to travel in that vehicle. It means that the opposite party was not able to arrange a vehicle with air conditioner to the journey as per the booking done by them. As per the opposite party they have arranged the same vehicle to the starting place of the journey which is about 10 Kms from Kattappana. The complainant never travelled in the vehicle arranged by the opposite party because of the defect in the air conditioner of the vehicle. So we think that the opposite party should return the booking price of the vehicle to the complainant.
 

Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to return Rs.2,000/- which is the booking price of the vehicle as per Ext.P1 to the complainant and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2010

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) 
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Augustine Joseph

PW2 - K.T.Pradeep

PW3 - V.S.Mohankumar

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - Thankachan Joseph

DW2 - Sinoj Thomas

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - True copy of Order Form issued by the opposite party at the time of booking

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Trip sheet of the vehicle No.KL-6D-9644 on 11.04.2010

Ext.R2 - Receipt dated 11.04.2010 for Rs.1378.10 issued by  M/s.P.K.Krishnan Nair, IOC Dealer, Idukki