BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 481/2002 Dated: 15..04..2009
Complainant:
Surendran, 108,Karthika, Manukooladichamangalam, Nemam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. S. Aswakumar)
Opposite parties:
1.Secretary, Titanium Labour Co-operative Society Ltd., No.T.206, TTP Campus, Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram – 21. 2.Manager, of ..do.. ..do.. (By Adv. Amaravila P. Venugopalan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 16..03..2009, the Forum on 15..04..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had booked a bus having seating capacity of 58 passengers belonged to the opposite parties in connection with the ring marriage of his brother, which scheduled to be held at 10 A.M on 26/8/2002 at Vellayambalam, that complainant had remitted an advance amount of Rs.500/-, that opposite parties had assessed the minimum charge of Rs.1,900/- at the rate of Rs.12/- per kilometer, that on 25/8/2002 complainant had reminded the opposite parties about the said trip and opposite parties assured the complainant that the said bus would reach at Peringammala at 9.30 A.M on 26/8/2002, and that opposite parties did not deliver the vehicle on 26/8/2002 as per the agreement which forced the complainant to bring other taxies which reached the relevant place belatedly. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2nd opposite party in collusion with the driver of the bus concerned, with malafide intention to extract higher rent sent the said vehicle to another marriage to be held at Karakkamandapam and that the action of the opposite parties will amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund Rs.500/- collected as advance amount, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- towards car expenses, Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards loss of goodwill and image and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the complaint. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable against the Co-operative Society, that the purpose for which the vehicle is booked is not known to the opposite parties, that opposite parties had received Rs.500/- as advance on 14/8/2002, that the complainant did not remit the balance amount before 23/8/2002 and thereby violated the condition of the contract and that the Manager of the 1st opposite party and the driver of the vehicle were not present in the society on 25/8/2002. Complainant did not telephone the 2nd opposite party on 26/8/2002. Though the complainant had violated the conditions of the agreement the vehicle was sent by the opposite parties at the right time. When the vehicle reached at Power House road, the diesel pipe of the vehicle blocked and the vehicle was taken to the workshop for repairs and the same was informed to the complainant. There was no willful negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and Cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked, and 1st opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. 5. Points (i) & (ii) : It has been the case of the complainant that on 14/8/2002 complainant had booked a bus, having seating capacity of 58 passengers, belonged to the opposite parties, in connection with the ring marriage of his brother, which was scheduled to be held at 10 A.M on 26/8/2002 at Vellayambalam, and opposite parties received Rs.500/- towards advance amount by virtue of Ext.P1, that opposite parties had assessed minimum charge of Rs.1,900/- at the rate of Rs.12/- per kilometer for the said trip and that on 25/8/2002 complainant had reminded the opposite parties about the said trip and opposite parties assured the complainant that the said bus would reach at Peringamala at 9.30 A.M on 26/8/2002, that contrary to the expectation, opposite parties did not send the said bus at the relevant time which forced the complainant to bring other taxies which reached the relevant place belatedly. Main thrust of argument of advanced by the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party in collusion with the driver of the bus concerned with malafide intention to extract higher rent sent the said vehicle to another marriage to be held at Karakkamandapam. It is submitted by the opposite parties that a concessional hire rate will be available to member of the society, that the complainant has stated that the bus was booked for the ring marriage ceremony of his brother, that as per terms and conditions fixed by the 1st opposite party, the said bus cannot be used by those who are not the members of the opposite parties. Admittedly, opposite parties received Rs.500/- on 14/8/2002. According to opposite parties, the advance remitted by the complainant was on the condition that the minimum hire charges after deducting the advance should be remitted by him on or before 23/8/2002, that the complainant had not remitted the said amount before 23/8/2002, thereby violated the condition of the contract for hiring the bus. Further, opposite parties say that it was due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties that the bus of the opposite parties could not reach in time at Peringammala. Evidently, as per Ext.P1, opposite parties had received Rs.500/- from the complainant. It is stated specifically in Ext.P1, that bus trip on 26/8/2002 (Monday). Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter dated 27/8/2002 addressed to the Secretary of the Society. Ext.P3 is the application form to book the vehicle. Ext.P4 is the minutes of the Director Board Meeting of the Society dated 18/9/2002. As per Ext.P4, the Director Board of the opposite parties met and discussed the issue lodged by the complainant and found that it was due to irresponsible attitude of the Driver of the bus concerned, the vehicle was not sent to the booking party in time, which led to the loss of reputation and goodwill of the opposite parties. As per Ext.P4, the Director Board of the opposite parties resolved to recover the loss of the minimum charge of Rs.1,900/- from the driver and Rs.100/- each from the driver and one Mohan Kumar towards penalty. Ext.P5 is the minutes of the Director Board meeting of the opposite parties dated 23/10/2002 in continuation of Ext.P4. 1st opposite party as DW1 has been vehemently cross examined by the complainant. DW1 has admitted Ext.P4 & P5 minutes and Ext.P1 receipt. Further, DW1 has admitted the Ext.P3 bus booking form issued by the opposite parties. DW1 has deposed that on reverse side of Ext.P3, no instructions were printed, but DW1 has added that in the former booking form instructions were printed. Ext.D1 is the bus booking form on the reverse side of which instructions are seen printed. It is pertinent to note that the booking form (Ext.D1) is seen signed by the complainant, while there is no signature seen put by the complainant on the reverse side of Ext.,D1. In cross examination complainant has asserted that there were no instructions printed in Ext.D1, while signed Ext.D1. Though DW1 admitted Ext.P3 and D1 in his cross examination he could not remember the date of printing of Ext.P3 booking form. In his cross examination, PW1 has deposed that on seeing the Ext.D1 form with instruction printed on the overleaf produced by the opposite parties, PW1 approached opposite parties' office with bonafide intention to obtain the bus booking form and obtained the same which is Ext.P3. On being asked whether the amount will be settled on returning the trip, DW1 has answered 'Yes'. DW1 has added further that if the entire amount is not remitted in advance, opposite parties will never deliver the vehicle as per instructions. DW1 has deposed further that party should remit at least minimum charge. As far member is concerned, even if the minimum charge was not remitted, opposite parties would deliver the vehicle since they could realise the amount from the member concerned. In the instant case DW1 has admitted that the vehicle was not rushed in time. DW1 in his affidavit has stated that complainant failed to remit the balance amount of Rs.1,900/- before 23/8/2002 and thereby violated the conditions of the contract for hiring the vehicle, that though there were serious lapses on the part of the complainant in fulfilling the conditions of the contract, the vehicle was sent at the right time on 26/8/2002, unfortunately on the way, the diesel pipe of the vehicle blocked and the vehicle was taken to the workshop for repairs and the same was informed to the complainant and requested to make alternate arrangement. Further it is to be pointed out that as per Ext.D2 the balance amount shall be remitted before 23/8/2002, but on the reverse side of Ext.D2 a contract is seen printed. As per clause 8 of the said contract the balance amount has to be remitted before starting the journey. The date mentioned (23/8/2002) in Ext.D2 and the clause 8 of the contract printed on the overleaf of Ext.D2 are mutually conflicting. Moreover, Further Ext.P3 booking form and Ext.D1 booking form are seen admitted by the opposite parties, but instructions printed on overleaf of Ext.D1 are not seen signed by the complainant. Further Ext.P4 and P5 minutes of Director Board of the opposite parties dated 18/9/2002 and 23/10/2002 are seen furnished by opposite parties on application of the complainant. On a perusal of Exts. P4 and P5, it is seen that opposite parties resolved to initiate action against the driver and daily worker of the vehicle concerned in connection with the bus booking by the complainant. Exts. P4 & P5 minutes would clearly show the lapses on the part of opposite parties in sending the vehicle at the right time. No material on record to prove otherwise. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in the light of the evidence available on the records, we find complaint is genuine and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund the booking amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 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 15th day of April, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No: 481/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : Surendran II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of receipt No.3750 dt. 14/8/02 issued by opposite party P2 : Copy of letter dated 27/8/2002 addressed to opp. Party by the complainant. P3 : Application form for booking of Bus P4 : Minutes dt. 18/9/2002 produced by the complainant. III. Opposite parties' witness: DW1 : S. Rajan IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Application dated 14/8/2002 for booking the bus D2 : Receipt No.845 dt. 14/8/2002 issued by opp. Party D3 : Receipt dated 26/8/2002 D4 : Trip sheet form for contract carriages.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 481/2002 Dated: 15..04..2009
Complainant:
Surendran, 108,Karthika, Manukooladichamangalam, Nemam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. S. Aswakumar)
Opposite parties:
1.Secretary, Titanium Labour Co-operative Society Ltd., No.T.206, TTP Campus, Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram – 21. 2.Manager, of ..do.. ..do.. (By Adv. Amaravila P. Venugopalan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 16..03..2009, the Forum on 15..04..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had booked a bus having seating capacity of 58 passengers belonged to the opposite parties in connection with the ring marriage of his brother, which scheduled to be held at 10 A.M on 26/8/2002 at Vellayambalam, that complainant had remitted an advance amount of Rs.500/-, that opposite parties had assessed the minimum charge of Rs.1,900/- at the rate of Rs.12/- per kilometer, that on 25/8/2002 complainant had reminded the opposite parties about the said trip and opposite parties assured the complainant that the said bus would reach at Peringammala at 9.30 A.M on 26/8/2002, and that opposite parties did not deliver the vehicle on 26/8/2002 as per the agreement which forced the complainant to bring other taxies which reached the relevant place belatedly. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2nd opposite party in collusion with the driver of the bus concerned, with malafide intention to extract higher rent sent the said vehicle to another marriage to be held at Karakkamandapam and that the action of the opposite parties will amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund Rs.500/- collected as advance amount, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- towards car expenses, Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards loss of goodwill and image and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the complaint. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable against the Co-operative Society, that the purpose for which the vehicle is booked is not known to the opposite parties, that opposite parties had received Rs.500/- as advance on 14/8/2002, that the complainant did not remit the balance amount before 23/8/2002 and thereby violated the condition of the contract and that the Manager of the 1st opposite party and the driver of the vehicle were not present in the society on 25/8/2002. Complainant did not telephone the 2nd opposite party on 26/8/2002. Though the complainant had violated the conditions of the agreement the vehicle was sent by the opposite parties at the right time. When the vehicle reached at Power House road, the diesel pipe of the vehicle blocked and the vehicle was taken to the workshop for repairs and the same was informed to the complainant. There was no willful negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and Cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked, and 1st opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. 5. Points (i) & (ii) : It has been the case of the complainant that on 14/8/2002 complainant had booked a bus, having seating capacity of 58 passengers, belonged to the opposite parties, in connection with the ring marriage of his brother, which was scheduled to be held at 10 A.M on 26/8/2002 at Vellayambalam, and opposite parties received Rs.500/- towards advance amount by virtue of Ext.P1, that opposite parties had assessed minimum charge of Rs.1,900/- at the rate of Rs.12/- per kilometer for the said trip and that on 25/8/2002 complainant had reminded the opposite parties about the said trip and opposite parties assured the complainant that the said bus would reach at Peringamala at 9.30 A.M on 26/8/2002, that contrary to the expectation, opposite parties did not send the said bus at the relevant time which forced the complainant to bring other taxies which reached the relevant place belatedly. Main thrust of argument of advanced by the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party in collusion with the driver of the bus concerned with malafide intention to extract higher rent sent the said vehicle to another marriage to be held at Karakkamandapam. It is submitted by the opposite parties that a concessional hire rate will be available to member of the society, that the complainant has stated that the bus was booked for the ring marriage ceremony of his brother, that as per terms and conditions fixed by the 1st opposite party, the said bus cannot be used by those who are not the members of the opposite parties. Admittedly, opposite parties received Rs.500/- on 14/8/2002. According to opposite parties, the advance remitted by the complainant was on the condition that the minimum hire charges after deducting the advance should be remitted by him on or before 23/8/2002, that the complainant had not remitted the said amount before 23/8/2002, thereby violated the condition of the contract for hiring the bus. Further, opposite parties say that it was due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties that the bus of the opposite parties could not reach in time at Peringammala. Evidently, as per Ext.P1, opposite parties had received Rs.500/- from the complainant. It is stated specifically in Ext.P1, that bus trip on 26/8/2002 (Monday). Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter dated 27/8/2002 addressed to the Secretary of the Society. Ext.P3 is the application form to book the vehicle. Ext.P4 is the minutes of the Director Board Meeting of the Society dated 18/9/2002. As per Ext.P4, the Director Board of the opposite parties met and discussed the issue lodged by the complainant and found that it was due to irresponsible attitude of the Driver of the bus concerned, the vehicle was not sent to the booking party in time, which led to the loss of reputation and goodwill of the opposite parties. As per Ext.P4, the Director Board of the opposite parties resolved to recover the loss of the minimum charge of Rs.1,900/- from the driver and Rs.100/- each from the driver and one Mohan Kumar towards penalty. Ext.P5 is the minutes of the Director Board meeting of the opposite parties dated 23/10/2002 in continuation of Ext.P4. 1st opposite party as DW1 has been vehemently cross examined by the complainant. DW1 has admitted Ext.P4 & P5 minutes and Ext.P1 receipt. Further, DW1 has admitted the Ext.P3 bus booking form issued by the opposite parties. DW1 has deposed that on reverse side of Ext.P3, no instructions were printed, but DW1 has added that in the former booking form instructions were printed. Ext.D1 is the bus booking form on the reverse side of which instructions are seen printed. It is pertinent to note that the booking form (Ext.D1) is seen signed by the complainant, while there is no signature seen put by the complainant on the reverse side of Ext.,D1. In cross examination complainant has asserted that there were no instructions printed in Ext.D1, while signed Ext.D1. Though DW1 admitted Ext.P3 and D1 in his cross examination he could not remember the date of printing of Ext.P3 booking form. In his cross examination, PW1 has deposed that on seeing the Ext.D1 form with instruction printed on the overleaf produced by the opposite parties, PW1 approached opposite parties' office with bonafide intention to obtain the bus booking form and obtained the same which is Ext.P3. On being asked whether the amount will be settled on returning the trip, DW1 has answered 'Yes'. DW1 has added further that if the entire amount is not remitted in advance, opposite parties will never deliver the vehicle as per instructions. DW1 has deposed further that party should remit at least minimum charge. As far member is concerned, even if the minimum charge was not remitted, opposite parties would deliver the vehicle since they could realise the amount from the member concerned. In the instant case DW1 has admitted that the vehicle was not rushed in time. DW1 in his affidavit has stated that complainant failed to remit the balance amount of Rs.1,900/- before 23/8/2002 and thereby violated the conditions of the contract for hiring the vehicle, that though there were serious lapses on the part of the complainant in fulfilling the conditions of the contract, the vehicle was sent at the right time on 26/8/2002, unfortunately on the way, the diesel pipe of the vehicle blocked and the vehicle was taken to the workshop for repairs and the same was informed to the complainant and requested to make alternate arrangement. Further it is to be pointed out that as per Ext.D2 the balance amount shall be remitted before 23/8/2002, but on the reverse side of Ext.D2 a contract is seen printed. As per clause 8 of the said contract the balance amount has to be remitted before starting the journey. The date mentioned (23/8/2002) in Ext.D2 and the clause 8 of the contract printed on the overleaf of Ext.D2 are mutually conflicting. Moreover, Further Ext.P3 booking form and Ext.D1 booking form are seen admitted by the opposite parties, but instructions printed on overleaf of Ext.D1 are not seen signed by the complainant. Further Ext.P4 and P5 minutes of Director Board of the opposite parties dated 18/9/2002 and 23/10/2002 are seen furnished by opposite parties on application of the complainant. On a perusal of Exts. P4 and P5, it is seen that opposite parties resolved to initiate action against the driver and daily worker of the vehicle concerned in connection with the bus booking by the complainant. Exts. P4 & P5 minutes would clearly show the lapses on the part of opposite parties in sending the vehicle at the right time. No material on record to prove otherwise. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in the light of the evidence available on the records, we find complaint is genuine and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund the booking amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 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 15th day of April, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No: 481/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : Surendran II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of receipt No.3750 dt. 14/8/02 issued by opposite party P2 : Copy of letter dated 27/8/2002 addressed to opp. Party by the complainant. P3 : Application form for booking of Bus P4 : Minutes dt. 18/9/2002 produced by the complainant. III. Opposite parties' witness: DW1 : S. Rajan IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Application dated 14/8/2002 for booking the bus D2 : Receipt No.845 dt. 14/8/2002 issued by opp. Party D3 : Receipt dated 26/8/2002 D4 : Trip sheet form for contract carriages.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
