THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 379/2013
Dated this the 21st day of May 2018.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Beena Joseph, Member:
This petition was filed on 24.08.2013 alleging illegal trade practice and service deficiency against the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that, in connection with the marriage of his daughter Akhila he had booked two tourist buses, which scheduled to start on 11.11.2012 at 7.30 A.M. from Vavad to Mananthavady Valliyoorkavu Bagavathy Temple and he had paid an advance of Rs.1000/- towards the booking. On the marriage day the Bride and their party wants to reach the grooms place at the earliest, the petitioner booked the buses. But the opposite party has not provided vehicle on 11.11.12. Hence the petitioner and others contacted the opposite party but there was no response. So the relatives of bride were waited by the side of public road. The petitioner and others could not arrange vehicles conveyance within a short time. So they could not reach the grooms station in time. All this caused due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. More over petitioner apprehended that the marriage of his daughter will not solemnized. So that the BP of the petitioner increased. In this situation, some relatives involved and they arranged a bus, two thavera, two sumo, two jeep and an Innova from several places. Due to this petitioner had to pay heavy amount to the vehicles. And sustained financial loss. This negligent behavior of opposite party, bride and others could not reach in time there was verbal altercation with the brides team which resulted humiliation to the bride’s party.
Petitioner had booked two buses with opposite party in advance even then without any intimation opposite party could not provide buses on the marriage function of petitioners daughter is amounts to purposeful cheating on the part of the opposite party. Moreover this is a clear case of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. This illegal act of the opposite party caused much inconvenience, mental agony, defamation and financial loss to the petitioner. So the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.275000/- to the petitioner.
The petitioner herein had issued a notice dated 23.11.12 claiming compensation from the opposite party which was received by them but there was no response on the side of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared opposite party filed version.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. Opposite party denies the entire allegation and averments in the petition except what they are specifically admitted in the version. It is admitted that, petitioner had booked two buses for the marriage function of petitioner’s daughter on 11.11.12. The petitioner had booked buses which having 49 seats. And the order form is produced herewith. Being so, prior to 11.11.12 petitioner approached this opposite party and intimated that, there is shortage of persons attending the marriage and demanded for 65 persons conveyance. So this opposite party provided a bus which has got 65 persons capacity. On 11.11.12 opposite party arranged a bus named Thejoram Tourist bus to the petitioner. But on the same day more persons came to the marriage function which is not expected by the petitioner. The bus contains only 65 person’s capacity, the conveyance for remaining persons were arranged by the petitioner as his own. The petitioner had paid the charge to the tourist bus services directly. And the brides’ party reached at the temple sufficient early and all of them participated the marriage function. And they returned after having the meals. And complainant paid the trip charge to the bus. Thereafter opposite party received a notice from the complainant on 23.11.12 and opposite party issued reply to the same on 04.12.12 itself. This opposite party is conducting tourist service for the last several years without any room for complaint. There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party will provide bus to the persons who booked bus with them, without any deficiency. The above complaint is filed without any basis and to tarnish the good will of the opposite party. And there was no deficiency of service or illegal trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed with a compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.
In this matter complainant side PWI, PWII, PWIII examined, and Ext.A1 & A2 Marked. Ext.A1 is the Order Form, Ext.A2 is the notice issued by the complainant. There was no evidence on the part of opposite party.
On the basis of contradictory statements following issues were framed for consideration.
Points to be considered:-
- Whether there is any service deficiency or illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party?
- If yes, what are the reliefs?
The complainant herein had booked two tourist buses with opposite party on 11.11.12 for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage. The marriage place was at Valliyoorkavu in Mananthavadi at Grooms place. The above bus was booked in advance by the petitioner by paying Rs.1000/- as advance. The fact was not disputed by the opposite party. The marriage was scheduled on 11.11.12 and the buses are directed to depart from the brides residence at Vavad at 7.30 A.M. The complainant submits that the opposite party has not provided any bus as booked by him. At last he and his relative arranged other alternative arrangements to attend the marriage function. Complainant’s brother in Law arranged a line bus named Thejoram and other vehicles so they could not reach in time to the marriage function. The non-issuance of Tourist buses by the opposite party caused all these complications and petitioner sustained heavy financial loss.
The opposite party contented that he had arranged the Thejoram bus to the petitioner. Moreover petitioner had intimated him that, there is shortage of persons to attending the marriage hence he requires only one bus. So the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and there is no service deficiency or illegal trade practice on the side of opposite party. The petitioner had produced Ext.A1 Order Form which marked as Ext.A1 shows that, petitioner had remitted Rs.1000/- as advance for two buses for the marriage function held on 11.11.12 at Panamaram. The main complaint of the petitioner is that, the buses were not reached on time as offered by the opposite party. As per
Ext.A1 the buses should have reached at bride’s residence at 7.30.A.M. The evidence of the complainant shows that, the opposite party has not provided bus as offered by the opposite party. On the other hand the opposite party contented that he provided a line bus. Ongoing to the evidence of PWII and PWIII it is very clear that PWII arranged the Thejoram bus for the marriage function being as a bus worker. PWII has been vehemently cross examined by the opposite party but nothing has been brought out to discredit his evidence. If the opposite party has provided the Thejoram bus, it is proper on his part to examine the bus operator’s. In this matter the respondent itself refrained from entering the box and giving evidence regarding this aspect. In this circumstances it is clear that, what is stated by the petitioner and his witness are true and correct. And opposite party is trying to stage-manage things in favour of him.
It is admitted that opposite party is conducting a tourist bus service and obtaining booking from the petitioner he could not provide bus as booked by the petitioner. In this circumstances definitely the complainant will be in trouble, especially, the function with respect to the marriage of his daughter, the tension will be at highest rate. So it is clear that opposite party has not provided bus for the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter. Usually an ordinary man will have some expectation with respect to his daughter’s marriage, when causing this type of negligence may cause heavy mental agony, humiliation and degradation in the society, which has to be compensated by the negligent party. So it is clearly found that the opposite party had committed gross negligence which amounts to illegal trade practice and service deficiency. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner.
In this matter the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the extent of damage sustained by him. Hence we are not in a position to uphold the entire claim of the petitioner. We already found that there is service deficiency and illegal trade practice adopted by the opposite party. So opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-. In the result petition is allowed.
Therefore we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation for illegal trade practice and service deficiency and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Comply the order within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order. Failing which the opposite party is directed to pay 9% interest the whole amount till realization.
Dated this 21st day of May 2018.
Date of filing: 24.08.2013.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Order Form.
A2. Notice issued by the complainant
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Krishnankutty (complainant)
PWII. Rameshan, Eranjikkal. Pilassery.PO, Kunnamangalam.
PWIII. Shaji. Purakkettil House, Vavad.PO, Koduvally.
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/ By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
