MOHD.WASIM vs SHIV BARAN SINGH ALIAS SHIV KARAN SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 1/1999.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows : The complainant Shri Shiv Baran Singh @ Shiv Karan Singh booked a bus of the opposite party, URM-3471 for the marriage party of his son. The booking was made for the marriage party to be brought on 9.5.1998 from the village Sainbasi to the village Kauhan Jaroli and back to Sainbasi village. Accordingly the marriage party in the bus was to reach village Kauhan Jaroli on 9.5.1998 and was to be brought back to village Sainbasi on 10.5.1998. As per agreement an advance of Rs. 500/- was paid to the opposite party at the time of booking the bus. The rest amount of Rs. 2,000/- was to be paid to the Bus Conductor on 9.5.1998 on the arrival of the bus. On 9.5.1998 as per programme the said bus took the marriage party from village Sainbasi to village Kauhan Jaroli bus the bus left the marriage party at village Kauhan Jaroli and did not return to take back the marriage party. The complainant waited on 10.5.1998 and 11.5.1998 but when the bus did not come, then on 11.5.1998 at about 1.00 p.m. a Mini Truck No. UP-7A-5994 had to be arranged to take back the marriage party for which an amount of Rs. 1,800/- has been paid. The marriage party had to be detained on 10.5.1998 and partly on 11.5.1998 and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was spent in the Dinner and Break-fast of those persons who had come with the marriage party. This lowered the social status of the complainant for which the opposite party was liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant contacted the opposite party several times and also gave a legal notice but no payment was made. The complainant, therefore, filed a claim before the District Consumer Forum for awarding a sum of Rs. 21,050/-, the details of which are given below : 1. Payment of mini truck freight. Rs. 1,800/ 2. Expenditure on Dinner and Break fast of the marriage party Rs. 5,000/ 3. Compensation for lowering of the social status Rs. 10,000/ 4. One way passenger fare. Rs. 1,250/ 5. Expenditure on notice Rs. . 500/ 6. Expenditure on litigation Rs. 2,500/ Total. Rs 21,050/ The opposite party has denied all the allegations contained in the complaint. He admitted that he is the owner of vehicle No. URM-3471 (Bus). The respondent along with eight other persons were travelling on the aforesaid vehicle. On 25.9.1998 from Ghazipur to Jarouli after reaching Jaurali they compelled the driver and the conductor to take them upto Kauhan Jaroli which is about 4 K.Ms. from Jaurali. The said portion of the route is not the part of the petitioners/opposite party''s bus route permit and, therefore, the staff of the bus refused to comply with the request on which the complainant and other persons threatened the staff of dire consequences. No agreement had ever been entered into between the two parties about the booking of the bus on 9.5.1998 for the marriage party of the complainant''s son. The receipt produced by the complainant indicating that the bus has been booked at the consideration of Rs. 2,500/- was a forged document. The complaint is baseless and has been filed to harrass the opposite party.

The parties led evidence before the District Consumer Forum and after hearing the case, partly decreed the claim of the complainant. The opposite party was directed by the District Forum to pay to the complainant one way passenger fare of Rs. 1,250/-, the fare paid for the mini truck amounting to Rs. 1,800/-, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for dinner and break-fast etc. of the marriage party, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for physical and mental torture. Thus a total amount of Rs. 10,050/- was ordered to be awarded to the complainant by the opposite party within a period of five weeks.

AGGRIEVED of this order, the opposite party has come in this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsels for the two parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that no amount was ever paid by the complainant to the opposite party and no agreement what-so-ever has been entered into between two parties. No amount of advance or return passenger fare was paid by the complainant. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that a registered notice was sent to the opposite party by the complainant and agreement between the two parties about the booking of bus and receipt was obtained from the appellant. It has been clearly stated that an amount of Rs. 500/- has been paid as advance and the rest amount will be paid when the bus arrives for taking the marriage party.

WE have also gone through the judgment and order of the District Forum along with copies of the documents which have been filed before the District Consumer Forum. The case of the appellant is that no booking was ever made in respect of his bus by the complainant. The receipt produced by the complainant was not issued on his behalf. On the other hand, the complainant''s case is that the bus was booked and an advance of Rs. 500/- was paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- was to be paid at the time the bus reached the place of marriage. The bus as per agreement did not return to take the marriage party and the complainant had to suffer on this account. The District Consumer Forum has dealt with the aspect of the matter in great detail. The Forum after perusing the receipt issued by the opposite party came to the conclusion that the receipt for booking the bus was in respect of the bus which was owned by the appellant and the appellant has admitted the ownership of the bus and, therefore, the appellant cannot escape the liability. It was for the appellant to have taken action against the staff who had issued the receipt. In addition to the receipt, affidavits of Sri Ajay Singh, Sri Satya Sen Dubey and Sri Gyanendra Bahadur Singh were filed. In all these affidavits, it has been stated that the Bus No. URM-3471 had been engaged for the marriage party and these are the persons who have attended the marriage party and corroborated the allegation of the complaint that because of non-return of the bus, the marriage party had to be detained on 10.5.1998 and partly on 11.5.1998. Thus the statement given by these persons in the form of affidavits were not rebutted in any way by the opposite party before the District Forum. In the circumstances, the judgment and order of the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as cost. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.