PRINCE TRAVELS vs MOHAN MADHAVRAOJI BAHIRAT

WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission itself and on hearing of the learned Advocates and on perusal of material made available in the appeal paper book. (For brevity''s sake the appellant hereinafter are referred to as the ''Travel Agents'' and the respondent as ''Complainant'').

THE travel agents are the appellant in this appeal, who have taken exception to the order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by the District Forum, Nagpur, holding them deficient in rendering services vis-a-vis complainant in making available the luxury buses, which the complainant has booked with the travel agents for the purpose of transportation of the marriage party from Nagpur to Jabalpur for his son, which was to be solemnized at Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. It is noticed that the booking was done well in advance paying advance, etc. The bus was agreed to be started in the morning at 8 a.m. on 17th June, 1999. The place of meeting was also agreed. According to the complainant, O.Ps. were given due implication of the time and place of the wedding functions, at the time of reservation and requested to be prompt and punctual. However, on that day only one bus was sent at 8 a.m. as against the two buses booked.

As the marriage party was expected to reach Jabalpur for certain wedding functions, which was to be held on the same day at Jabalpur and there were as many as 100 persons of the marriage party to travel in the said buses, the complainant was put in predicament and journey could not take place. The second bus was made available after 6 hours i.e. at 1.30 p.m.

THE result was that the marriage party could not reach the destination, namely Jabalpur on time. This gave the cause to the complainant to file the complaint. Eventually matter proceeded ex parte as O.Ps. who were duly served with Forum''s, were granted indulgence by the District Forum on as many as on six occasions for filing their written version, but for reasons best known to O.Ps. same was not filed within time granted and ultimately District Forum ordered, as provided under Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for proceeding ex parte rejecting attempt of O.Ps. at belated stage to tender written version.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant/travel agents made three submissions while assailing the impugned order. Firstly, it was asserted that the District Forum should have entertained the application of the travel agents for taking written statement on record and exercise its discretion as also inherent power to do so. It is noticed that the District Forum, Nagpur did exercise the discretion in granting indulgence to the travel agents on six occasions as it reflected in its order dated 5.10.2001 passed by District Forum in the application of the travel agents. We do not think the same requires any further elaboration to reject the same.

THE second point is that one Shri Gupta who was an agent, has not been made O.P. However, such submission appears to be factually incorrect. In fact the O.P. in the cause title of the complaint have been described as ''Prince Travels'' and its initial receipt of deposits, etc., issued to the complainant being dated 29th April, the original of which is shown to us, is on the Letter Head of ''Prince Travels''. That being so the second point requires to be rejected.

THE third point urged was that the impugned order is devoid of sufficient reasons. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=VI (2000) SLT 867=(2000) 7 SCC 668. In the first instance, the reference to the judgment of Supreme Court is totally uncalled for. THE Supreme Court in the said case was considering the matter which was seriously contested in which written statement was filed by O.Ps. as also evidence in defence was adduced. In the instant case, as noticed, it is not the position and the claim of the complainant remained unchallenged and uncontroverted in all respect by and on behalf of the O.P./travel agents. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that the District Forum has adverted to the factual aspects in details and, therefore, we do not find any justification in submissions advanced before us. ORDER (i) No merits and appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The appellants shall pay cost in this appeal, to the complainant quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. (iii) Copies to be furnished to the parties. (iv) The application for stay for execution of the impugned order made by and on behalf of the applicant, stands rejected.

Appeal dismissed.