KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.391/01 JUDGMENT DATED. 30.08.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.P.Babu, Manager, Tourist Bus Booking Agency, Puthiyakavu Junction : APPELLANTS K.S.Puram (P.O) 2.Nissar, Proprietor, Tourist Bus Booking Agency, Puthiyakavu Junction K.S.Puram P.O (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs Yusuff Kunju Chettisseril Thekkathil, : RESPONDENT Mullikkala, Thevalakkara P.O Kollam. (By Adv.R.Sabu) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.819/99 in the filed of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8,250/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 22.8.99 he paid Rs.1000/- as advance to the opposite party and booked a tourist bus for 5 days from 27.8.99 in order to travel to Beemapally, Kanyaklumari, Madhurai etc. It was agreed to pay Rs.19,750/- as hire charges and Rs.200/- as daily batta. But they failed to provide the bus resulting in considerable difficulties to the complainant. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that there was no such agreement with the complainant whose name is mentioned as Yunus Kunju in the receipt issued. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2; DWs 1 and 2; Exts.P1 to P3 and Exts.D1 and D1(a) 5. The forum has relied on the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents produced and directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the amount incurred for arranging another vehicle and Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental agony etc and Rs.1000/- the amount paid as advance to be returned; and Rs.250/- towards costs. 6. We find that although the agreement etc were denied in the version filed Ext.P1/D1(a) receipt in the performa format all the details are mentioned. Of course, the name is mentioned in Ext.P1/D1(a) as Yunus Kunju. The name mentioned in the complaint is Yunus Kunju @ Yusuff Kunju. It is pointed out that all the persons belonged to the same locality and are known to each other. It is also brought out that the appellants have added in a different ink against the column as to receipt of Rs.1000/- as nil in Ext.D1(a). The above portion is missing in Ext.P1. PW1 has stated that the signature of the person who booked the vehicle is that of his own. It is mentioned in Ext.P1/D1(a) that the balance to be paid deducting the advance of Rs.1000/- is 18,750/-. 7. The stress of the counsel for the appellants is on the fact that nobody approached the appellants to confirm the order. PW1 has mentioned that on the particular day at 5 am himself and 41 others waited for the bus and the bus did not reach at the spot. Himself and 2 others went to the office of the appellants and then they told that the bus has gone for another trip and that it will return only on 29th day. When they requested to arrange another bus that was also not considered. 8. We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. The sum of compensation ordered is rather on the lower side. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for interference. In the result the appeal is dismissed JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
