<br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant directing the opp.party to pay Rs.15,000/- being the taxi charges , Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had booked 2 Tourist Buses on 23.6.2004 by giving Rs.5000/- as advance and the opp.party had accepted the advance amount vide voucher No.611 dated 23.6.2004. The said booking was made for conveying the guests for the marriage of the complainant’s nephew, Deep Unnithan from Kollam to Trivandrum on 9.12.2004. At the time of booking the complainant had requested that the party would be starting at 8 AM on 9.12.2004 and hence the two buses should be ready by that time and the opp.party had marked the time of starting in his register and they assured the complainant that the buses would come at the residence of the complainant before 7.30 A.M. On 9.12.2004 the date of marriage, all the invited guests and relatives were ready to proceed to Thiruvananthapuram. But even after 7.50 the buses did not arrive. The complainant immediately contacted the opp.party and the opp.party assured the complainant that the buses would reach within half an hour. After one hour one bus of the opp.party came toi the residence of the complainant and the driver of the bus informed the complainant that only one bus was available and the complainant had to arrange some other vehicle for conveyance. The complainant again contacted the opp.party, but the opp.party responded in a very negligent manner and advised the complainant to make some other alternative arrangement. The opp.party further warned the complainant that he would call back the bus already sent in case the complainant makes further demand. The complainant had sent his close relatives to several places to get taxi. Finally due to the efforts of the complainant and his relatives one bus and 10 taxi cars were procured from several places and managed to convey the invitees and relatives. The dignity of the complainant and his family were considerably lowered before the relatives of the bride. All the ceremonial rituals had to be performed in a speedy manner and certain ritual items could be performed in time due to scarcity of time caused by the late arrival of the bridegroom party. The complainant had suffered deep mental tension, strain and hardships due to the act of the opp.party. Apart from the mental pain, the complainant had to spend Rs.15000/- being the hiring charges of taxies etc. On 25.12.2004 the complainant approached the opp.party and claimed the amount spent for hiring the taxi cars. The opp.party had agreed in writing that the failure in sending the buses as per the booking and acceptance of Rs.3500/- amounted to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is filed as an experimental case without good faith and with the malafide motive of trying to escape from his liabilities and responsibilities of the latches of the complainant himself and to avert a possible litigation against him. As agreed the opp.party sent two buses bearing registration Nos. KL-4-J 205 and KL-2-U-100 and it had reached in front of the complainant’s residence by 7 AM on 9.12.2004. Then the crew of the buses found that another bus named Pallavi Travels was there and the passengers were boarding the bus. Then the complainant informed the crew that due to several marriages the persons who are coming to Thiruvananthapuram is reduced then his expectation. The maximum number of persons to go to Thiruvananthapuram was only less than one hundred and ten and only two buses are that required apart from their two cars. Also he said since there is only one bus from Pallavi Travels he is not in a position to avoid them. One of the buses of the opp.party was sent back and the other vehicle along with the bus of Pallavi Travels and the two cars went to Trvandrum and all of them reached the place of marriage well ahead of the marriage time. The allegations of non-providing of the bus and other things are only part of the innovated story to escape from his liability. As per the agreement the vehicles were provided in time. The expectation and calculation of the complainant went wrong and trying to avoid the payment of the vehicle sent back he has filed this complaint with ulterior motives. The so called hiring of taxi etc. are made only to suit this complaint. No taxi was hired by him for this purpose. It is only after repeated demand the complainant paid the amount. Absolutely there is no deficiency in the service provided by this opp.party. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this complaint. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party<br /> 2.Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PWs. 1 and 2 are examined and marked Exts.P1 and P2.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.party DWs. 1 and 2 are examined.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2<br /> <br /> The complainant’s case is that on 23.6.2004 the complainant has booked two tourist buses of the opp.party for taking the guests from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram for the marriage of his nephew on 9.12.2004. But on 9.12.2004, the buses did not arrive. even after the agreed time. After much efforts of the complainant and his relatives on e bus and 10 taxi cars were procured from several places. The opp.party’s main contention is that he had sent two buses bearing registration Nos. KL-4-J-205 and KL-2-U-100 to the residence of the complainant on 9.12.2004 and the buses reached there at the correct time. Then there was another bus named Pallavi travels and the passengers were boarding the bus. The complainant sent back one of the buses of the opp.party. cording to the opp.party the complainant had <br /> not hired even a single taxi and the complainant had not suffered any loss as alleged.<br /> <br /> The point to be decided is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. According to the complainant only after repeated requests made by the complainant, the opp.party arranged one bus after a lapse of half an hour after the agreed time. That means one bus has reached at the residence of the complainant at the correct time. That shows the above said pleadings of the complainant is not correct. Complainant case is that he called other vehicles ie. one bus and 10 taxis instead of the opp.party’s vehicle and for the rent of the above vehicles Rs.15,000/- has been expended. As a matter of fact PW.1 has not produced any material, worth believable, to show that he has called one bus and 10 taxis instead of the opp.party’s vehicle and paid the rent. No way bill or no trip sheet is produced by the complainant. There is only a vague statement that he had called other vehicle and spent extra amount. In the absence of any material worth believable, the only inference that can be drawn is that the version of the opp.party that PW.1 had not spent even single paise on this account is probable. From the complainant’s side PW.2 is examined for proving the complainant’s case. But during cross examination he has deposed that <br /> <br /> <br /> That deposition is entirely different from the complainant’s case. This statement shows he was not there to attend the marriage. From the entire evidence we are of the view that the version of the opp.party that as per the agreement the opp.party sent two bus at the agreed time and the complainant sent back one of the bus is correct. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – G.C.S. Unnithan<br /> PW.2. – Gopi Pillai<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Booking voucher.<br /> P2. – Marriage Invitation letter.<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> DW.1. – Remanan<br /> DW.2. – Rethendran Pillai<br />