First Appeal No.2008/1121

(Arising out of Order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.626/2007)

Sh. Chinta Mani Jain …. Appellant/Complainant

S/o. Sh. Yad Ram Jain through Mr. P.K. Jain,

D-732, Ganesh Nagar –II, advocate.

Shakarpur, Delhi -110092.

Versus

Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain, … Respondent /OP

Proprietor/Principal Officer,

M/s. Jain Golden Gulzar Tour

& Travels,

20-A, Old Punjab Bus Stand,

Near Old Delhi Railway Station,

Fatehpuri, Delhi.

CORAM

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)

1. Short facts of the case are that the complainant appellant hired a bus for carrying marriage party of his son on 22.01.2007, from Delhi to Agra and back on 24.01.2007. The amount agreed between the two was Rs.16,250/- out of which the complainant paid to the OP Rs.2000/- in advance while the remaining amount of Rs.14,250/- was to be paid on the return of the marriage party from Agra. OP had issued a receipt No.115 dated 24.11.2006 with regard to this agreement. Complainant’s grouse is that the OP did not provide him the bus as agreed and also refused to make alternate arrangement and therefore, the complainant had to hire six vehicles on payment of Rs.4500/- each spending in all Rs.27,000/- for to and fro of the marriage party.

2. Complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum against the OP with a prayer that the OP be directed to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also the litigation costs.

3. The OP opposed the claim of the complainant and filed the written statement pleading that complainant was required to supply list of passengers with their names and addresses alongwith the wedding card, for obtaining him the permit to travel outside Delhi, which was agreed, but the complainant did not do so, and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP denied of engaging six vehicles by the complainant for Rs.4500/- each, for carrying the marriage party.

4. The District Forum repelled the contention of the OP and found him deficient in providing service, and directed the OP to refund advance amount (Rs.2000/-) to the complainant and to pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.2000/- as the litigation cost.

5. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, awarded, complainant has come up in appeal before in this Commission.

6. None appeared for the respondent at the time of arguments. We have therefore heard Mr. P.K. Jain, Counsel for the appellant.

7. The only question which is to be considered is, whether it was necessary for the appellant to give the marriage invitation card and the list of the passengers to the respondent. The contention of the respondent had been that these documents were necessary for obtaining permission from the Transport Authority. The District Forum held that if such documents were necessary for movement of the bus, the respondent should have obtained them, and has mentioned in this connection that it was nowhere mentioned in the receipt of initial payment of Rs.2000/-, that the appellant had to provide the documents. Even if we concede to the argument that the receipt was not the place, where the demand of documents was to be mentioned, it has to be held that if such papers were necessary for the journey by the bus it was for the respondent to have obtained them, and the respondent could and should have asked for these papers, from the appellant. The appellant is not supposed to know the requirement of the Transport Authority for grant of permit for the bus. It is the respondent who is supposed to know this, and he should have demanded and obtained the papers. The District Forum was therefore right in holding, as it did.

8. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is very meager and therefore needs enhancement. The appellant has said, because of the non-availability of the bus he had immediately to procure six cars for the marriage party to proceed at the appointed time and paid Rs.27,000/- as fair to these cars. He should therefore be given that amount as damages. The District Forum has not given any reason, as to why, it was not awarding Rs.27,000/- when the appellant had to spend the same, at the spur of the moment, in procuring other vehicles.

9. The amount of compensation granted by the District Forum therefore needs to be revised upwards and he should be granted Rs.27,000/- which he has spent. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- has already been awarded by the District Forum which may be treated as damages for the breach of contract and harassment. In the result what we need to do is to add Rs.27,000/- to the award given by the District Forum and the order of the District Forum is modified accordingly. Appeal allowed to that extent.

10. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

Announced on 08th day of January 2010.