Back
2005 (2) CPR 150
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PONDICHERRY
V. Bakthavatsalu, President and M.A. Emile, Member
The Proprietor, Arivazhagan Transport, Pondicherry—Appellant/Opp. Party
versus
G.K. Ramachandiran—Respondent/Complainant
Appeal No. 2 of 2004
Decided on 4-11-2004
Counsel for the parties:
Fort the Appellant :N.K. Perumal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Anandabash-kharan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Failure to provide tourists bus booked by consumer would amount to deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12 and 17 — Deficiency in service in providing tourist bus booked by complainant — Complainant booked a tour programme and paid Rs. 1100/- towards part consideration for bus — Bus was not provided and complainant had to arrange five vans at a cost of Rs. 9,000/- — Compensation claim — Defence plea that opp. party applied for special permit but due to shifting of office of State Transport Authority, permit could not be issued — District Forum holding opp. party appellant deficient in service directed appellant to pay Rs. 12,100/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation — Appeal — Reasons assigned for not obtaining permit were replete with inconsistencies — District Forum rightly held appellant deficient in service — No
evidence that infact complainant paid
Rs. 9,000/- for engaging vans — Order directing payment of this amount could not be sustained — Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as damages could not be said to be exorbitant and was liable to be confirmed — Cost of Rs. 2,000/- reduced to Rs. 1,000/-.(Paras 7, 12 and 13)
Result : Appeal allowed partly.
V. Bakthavatsalu, President — The Opposite Patty is the appellant.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 3.3.2001, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and sought to book a tourist bus for one day tour
from Pondicherry to Chennai Seerani Arangam on 5.3.2001 and return to Pondicherry by the same route. The Opposite Party allotted a vehicle bearing
PY 01 L 5199 on 5.3.2001. The Opposite Party has fixed the rent a sum of
Rs. 1850/- and received an advance of
Rs. 1100/-. On the same day, the Opposite Party has received another sum of Rs.2,000/- towards diesel advance. The Opposite Party has not arranged the vehicle on 5.3.2001. On being contacted by the complainant, there was no proper response from the Opposite Party. The complainant was put to mental agony and suffering due to his failure to arrange a vehicle as agreed by the Opposite Party, After having waited in vain, on 5.3.2001, the complainant has arranged five vans with one BVS Travels at Villianur belonging to one Kumar for rent of Rs.9,000/-. The complainant had to incur Rs.
9,000/- due to the negligence of Opposite Party and deficiency of service. The Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the loss incurred by the complainant and also for the mental agony, torture which he values at Rs.50,000/-. The complainant approached the Opposite Party several times and called upon him to compensate him for the loss sustained by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, on 20.3.2001, the complainant issued notice calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the money and pay damages. The postman has given intimation of the registered letter but the Opposite Party has not claimed the letter deliberately. Hence, the complainant has filed this petition. The Opposite Party may be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 12,100 and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental agony and suffering and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Party.
3. The case of the Opposite Party is as follows:
It is true that the complainant booked a tour programme on 5.3.2001 for one day to go to Chennai. The Opposite Party received Rs.1100/- as advance. It is not correct to say that the complainant has paid Rs.2,000/- as diesel advance at the time of making advance for the vehicle. After getting an order, the Opposite Party applied for special permit to go to Chennai with the State Transport Authority on 4.3.2001, by paying necessary fees for the same. On the date, the Transport Department was shifting its office premises to some other place. Because of that, the officer-in-charge of the said section misplaced the application for special permit and they also advised the clerk of the Opposite Party to get the permit on 5.3.2001 at about 9 a.m. As such, the Opposite Party explained the situation with the complainant and also advised that he will send the vehicle by 9 a.m. itself in the morning after getting the special permission from the Transport office. Hence, the failure to send the vehicle in time is not because of the act of the Opposite Party. The complainant has gone to Chennai by other means in spite of advise and explanation given
by the Opposite Party for which the Opposite Party is not responsible in any way. The same occurred only beyond the efforts made by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party even after this incident has agreed to return the advance of Rs.1100/- to the complainant but he refused to receive the same. The allegation that the complainant had suffered mental agony and torture is not true. The fact that the Opposite Party has agreed to send the vehicle at about 9 a.m on 5.3.2001 was intimated to the complainant on 4.3.2001 evening itself. Accepting the explanation, the complainant agreed to come in the morning but he never turned up on that day. The Opposite Party has sent a letter to the Regional Transport Authority stating the above facts and asked to settle the matter with the
