SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

J.D.KAPOOR, RUMNITA MITTAL
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
RAO TRAVELS – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : None.
For the Respondent:Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—Appellant was a University student when he engaged the services of the respondent for pilgrimage for Badrinath-Kedarnath Yatra. The complaint seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service by the respondent in not providing the requisite and assured services was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15th March, 1996 being misuse of the process of the Forum and also with an advice to the appellant that he should be more careful in future. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. There is no dispute that the appellant booked four seats on 22nd June, 1994 with the respondent and one more seat was added en route against payment of Rs. 4,200/- plus Rs. 1,050/- for Badrinath-Kedarnath Yatra which commenced on 26th June, 1994. Allegations of deficiency in service, in brief, were firstly that at their stop at Rishikesh the respondent did not provide a guide and they had to hire a guide on payment of Rs. 45; secondly, that no accommodation was provided at Srinagar and a trunk call was made to the respondent from Srinagar about the lack of accommodation for which receipt of payment of Rs. 150/- was filed by the appellant, th
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top