Central Delhi


DES RAJ JAGGARWAL - Complainant(s)



23 Sep 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/111/2021
( Date of Filing : 27 Oct 2021 )
Dated : 23 Sep 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                                   ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No. 111/dated 27.10.2021


Des Raj Jaggarwal s/o Shri Naval Kishore Jaggarwal

R/o 3A/59, First Floor, W.E.A.

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005                                                                …Complainant


Sehgal Tourist (R)

Head Office: 1018, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005


Branch office at

20A, Pocket-A, Jail Road,

(Opposite Hari Nagar Deport-1), New Delhi-110064

(through its owner/authorized person)                                                     ...Opposite Party



                                                                                    Date of filing:             27.10.2021

                                                                                    Date of Order:            23.09.2023


Coram:  Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

                Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

                Shri Vyas Muni Rai,    Member


Inder Jeet Singh



1.1. (Introduction to the disputes of parties) –The complainant booked a tempo traveler from OP for a trip, the agreed amount was Rs. 17,500/- out of  which,  OP was paid Rs. 5000/- as advanced and remaining amount of Rs. 12,500/- was payable after completion of journey. However, the driver of OP failed to report in time, he came too late and then vehicle was not functional, the entire trip was spoiled  since the complainant had already booking in the Star Inn Holidays; the complainant had to arrange other vehicle to reach destination. He alleges deficiency of services and seeks refund of advance amount of Rs. 5000/-, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs of facing harassment, agony etc. besides litigation charges of Rs.55,000/-.

1.2. The OP opposed the complaint that the vehicle reported well in advance, there is record of GPS, payment of advance tax to Government but complainant failed to provide the space for parking of vehicle, the vehicle was parked nearby garbage and there were rats, who bitten the wires in the tempo/vehicle, consequently technical issue had arisen; the delay was not on the part of OP. The complainant made other arrangement hurriedly at his own choice. The OP is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

2.1. (Case of complainant) – In August, 2019, the complainant purchased holiday package of Star Inn Holidays for trip of Rangers Reserved Resort, Jim Corbatt for period 07.10.2019 to 09.10.2019 for 9 adults and 3 children, including a pregnant lady of six months. In order to reach there, the complainant booked tempo traveler in advance on 17.09.2019 for the said trip from OP for a sum of Rs. 17,500/-, an advance of Rs. 5000/- against receipt was paid to OP but remaining amount of Rs. 12,500/- was payable after completion of journey.

2.2. On 06.10.2019 complainant visited office of OP to confirm detail of vehicle and of driver deputed for the trip, the OP provided detail of driver namely Pamma/Shyam along with his contact number for further onward information.

            The driver was to report with vehicle on 07.10.2019 at 5am but he had not reached till 6 am, when he was contacted, the telephone was not picked up. After repeated calls, he reached after about one and half hour, when enquired, he reacted in offensive mood, there were heated arguments, the tempo could be boarded after two and half hour late by the agreed time. The conduct of driver was not well, he was abusing unparliamentarily language in the presence of lady family member.

2.3. A few minutes after departure, the vehicle was suddenly stopped because of technical problem, which the driver could not solve, the owner of vehicle also arrived but there was no solution till 8:30 am and when complainant enquired as to how much time it may take, the complainant was asked to make an another arrangement as further journey to the destination would not be possible by that vehicle. It was appearing that actually there was no technical issue but the OP and driver were not interested to make the journey. The complainant along with family members were constraints to get down from the vehicle.

2.4. The complainant could not find any 12 seats vehicle and he was constraint to book two car (6 seats each) from M/s Singh Tourist, Karol Bagh for a sum of Rs. 24,352/- against bills and they were able to reach destination Ranger Reserves Resort at 6 pm instead of check-in time of 12noon . Because of time constraints, the complainant and his family tired due to sole negligence of OP, it was the worst experience faced by them and pregnant lady also suffered a lot besides inconvenience to children and senior citizen. It was not expected from OP being professional. The complainant and his family members have not only paid double charges but also faced many inconveniences. The trip of complainant and his family spoiled because of OP, he lodged email complaint, but no response was received. That is why the complaint.  

2.5. The complaint is accompanied with advance amount receipt  of Rs. 5000/-, two bills/receipts of Rs. 12,176 /- each issued by M/s Singh Tourist, discharge summary of lady family member, copy of online complaint.

3.1 (Case of OP)- The complaint is opposed by the OP that neither any negligence on the part of OP nor OP is liable to pay any amount of compensation or litigation expenses to the complainant. Since, the complainant had made advance payment of Rs. 5.000/-, the OP is prepared to refund the same.

3.2. The complainant had booked tempo for Jim Corbett for Rs. 17,500/-. The tempo had reported in advance at the location by travelling a distance of 15 km from the office of OP, the GPS report is filed. The vehicle was of 2018 model with Maharaja seats. However, no suitable place for parking the vehicle was provided by the complainant, the vehicle was got parked near garbage house with the consent of complainant, where electric wire in the tempo were bitten by rats. Therefore, maintenance team was called at the location, there was delayed in starting the trip by 90 minutes, however, the delay was not deliberate and the issue of repair was fixed within standard time but complainant was impatient and he is looking for compensation for Innova against cost for tempo traveler. The OP is ready to refund advance of Rs. 5000/- by suffering taxes paid as losses, besides the tempo remained vacant during peak timings of Dussehra holidays.

3.3. The OP also denies all other allegations either of delay of two and half hours or of unparliamentarily language by the driver or harassment to lady family member, children and senior citizen, with request that there are no merits in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.

3.4. The reply is accompanied with copy of reply to the complaint filed with consumer helpline and copy of advance payment of tax to the Government of but there is no GPS report attached as mentioned in the reply.

4. (Replication of complainant) – The complainant filed rejoinder, he denies all the allegations of the written statement of OP and he reaffirms the complaint as correct. Neither there was Maharaja seats in the vehicle nor the model of vehicle was of 2018 nor the vehicle travelled 15 km nor it had reported in advance nor the complainant had given any consent to park the vehicle near garbage nor it was parked there nor the tempo was booked for Jim Corbatt. It is self-serving story created by the OP.

5.1. (Evidence)- Complainant Deshraj Jaggarwal led his evidence by filing detailed affidavits with the support of documents filed with the complaint.   

5.2. The OP was also given opportunity to lead evidence, however, the matter remained adjourned for leading evidence by the OP, followed by last opportunity and then cost of Rs. 2000/- was also imposed coupled with another opportunity and despite imposing of cost and further opportunity, the OP failed to lead evidence, therefore, the OP’s evidence was closed.


6. (Final hearing)- The parties were given opportunity to file written argument as well as to make oral submission. The complainant filed written arguments followed by oral submissions by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate.

            The OP failed to file written arguments as well as to make oral submissions and matter was also passed-over, when it was scheduled for oral submissions, however, OP failed to appear and to make the submission.  Thus, matter on record will be considered while appreciating the case of both sides.


7.1 (Findings)-The case of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the admitted facts of both sides and other documentary record proved by the complainant. Therefore, the following conclusions are drawn:-

(i) There is no dispute that complainant booked tempo traveler of OP for Ranger Reserves Resort for trip against total agreed amount of Rs. 17,500/- out of which Rs. 5000/- was deposited as per receipt proved. The vehicle was to report to complainant on 07.10.2019 at 6 am (date and time showing in booking receipt) and return was on 07.10.2019.


(ii) It is also admitted case of OP that there was no journey to destination, there was mechanical break-down or otherwise an issue with the said tempo, because of it the journey was not undertaken after a few minutes . Neither the OP filed GPS report (despite so mentioning in the reply) nor any evidence has been led on behalf of OP that it had reported in time or in advance. There is also no evidence that wires of the tempo were bitten by the rats.


(iii). The OP also admits to make refund of the advance amount received.

(iv). The OP was under contractual obligation to make available the vehicle in time to undertake journey, or if it was not functional then to make available other vehicle and for want of it, the complainant was constraint to arrange two cars to make the journey, which was undertaken after delay  as well as for want of making available vehicle by OP.


(v) The complainant has proved bill/cash memos of Rs. 24,352/- for availing two cars and OP had taken the objection that tempo traveler was booked but amount of car freight is being claimed. The OP carries tourist transport operation and there is no iota of any plea that OP had offered another tempo traveler in lieu of earlier vehicle, which was break down.


(vi) The complainant was constraint to avail the other immediately available mode of transport, it was of cars and there is no evidence by OP that complainant exercised this option despite availability/arranging of another tempo traveler of same capacity or the car were opted in hurry.


(vii) Had the complainant and his family travelled on OP’s tempo traveler, the complainant has to pay total transportation charges of Rs. 17,500/- but because of want of making available another tempo traveler by the OP and also for want of availability of tempo traveler otherwise but cars as alternate mode of transport, the complainant has spent Rs. 24,352/-. To say, he had spent excess amount of Rs. 6,752/-.  The complainant deserves reimbursement of such excess amount of Rs. 6,752/-  from OP, it does not enrich the complainant since it was to reach destination.


(viii) The complainant also deserves return of advance amount of Rs. 5000/-, which is admitted by the OP.


7.2. In view of the conclusion drawn in paragraph 7.1 above, the complainant deserves amount of Rs. 11,752/- (i.e. Rs. 6752+ Rs. 5000/-).

7.3. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.5 lakh on account of harassment, torture-physical and mental, however, considering the inconvenience, delay and difficulties/trauma faced & nature of dispute,  compensation of Rs. 2,000/- is determined in favour of complainant. The complainant also claims litigation charges of Rs.55,000/-, however, considering the complainant was constraint to file the complaint, cost of Rs. 2000/- is allowed.

7.5. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of the complainant and against the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 11,752/- to the complainant, apart from damages of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

            The OP will pay the amount within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the OP will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of Rs. 11,752/- from the date of complaint till realization of the amount.

8:  Announced on this 23rd September, 2023 [1 भाद्र, साका 1945].

9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.


[Vyas Muni Rai]                                   [ Shahina]                             [Inder Jeet Singh]

           Member                              Member (Female)                              President




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.