Ram Singh vs WARAICH TOURS And TRAVELS

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II) dated 7.2.2003 in Complaint Case No. 376 of 2002, Ram Singh v. Waraich Tours & Travels.

THE complaint in short is that the complainant hired the services of the OP for transporting members of the Barat of his nephew from Zirakpur to Village Pandwala, Tehsil Derabassi on 26.4.2002. It was agreed that a 50 seater ordinary bus will be provided at 7:30 a.m. on the aforesaid date. A sum of Rs. 500/- was taken by the OP as the advance amount for booking the bus and balance Rs. 2,000/- was to be paid later (Annexure P-1 (sic. C-1) refers). However, on the date i.e. 26.4.2002 the bus did not arrive at the appointed place till 10:00 a.m. and when approached by the complainant the OP refused to send the bus. Consequently, the complainant had to hire six Tata Sumo vehicles for the transporation of the Barat for which he had to spend more than Rs. 5,000/- and moreover the Barat was late by five to seven hours which caused a lot of humiliation and embarrassment to the complainant. For this deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant filed this complaint and prayed for the refund of Rs. 500/- paid as advance to the OP and also payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the OP for the loss suffered. The OP did not appear to contest the case and was proceeded against ex parte. Based on evidence produced by the complainant, learned District Forum-II held the OP guilty of deficiency in service and partly allowing the complaint directed the OP to pay the complainant Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for physical and mental harrassment and also to refund Rs. 500/- paid by him as advance. The OP was also to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. It further directed the OP to pay interest to the complainant of Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. 26.4.2002 till payment.

Aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed this appeal. The appeal was taken on board and record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II. Notice was sent to the respondent/OP but none responded. In initial notice sent, cabin No. of the respondent in the SCO building was not mentioned in the address as the same, though mentioned in the complaint, was not mentioned in the memo of appeal. On the appellant amending the memo of appeal notice was sent again at the full address of the respondent but it came back with the endorsement "left without address." Hence the respondent was proceeded against ex parte.

MR. Arunjeev Singh Walia, Advocate representing the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum had not taken into consideration the affidavit of the complainant and the receipt of Panchkula Taxi Stand placed on record, that he had paid Rs. 5,000/- for six Tata Sumo vehicles and, therefore, the relief granted was on the lower side. He, therefore, prayed for the enhancement of the relief granted. The evidence on record indicates that the appellant/complainant by hiring six Tata Sumo vehicles had to pay Rs. 2,500/- more than the payment he was required to make for the hiring of the bus. In addition, the complainant had to suffer embarrassment as well as harassment. In our considered view, he should have been compensated for both particularly when the learned District Forum concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP/respondent or otherwise reason for disbelieving the version of financial damage caused and harassment and embarrassment suffered, should have been given in the impugned order. Moreover, a critical examination of the impugned order indicates that though learned District Forum has directed the OP to pay interest on Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. 26.4.2002, rate of interest to be paid has not been indicated.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the appellant/complainant has not been adequately compensated by the impugned order of District Forum-II. Moreover, the order is incomplete as it does not indicate the rate of interest to be paid by the OP. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent/OP is directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant, including refund of Rs. 500/- as advance paid by him alongwith costs which is quantified as Rs. 500/-. The respondent/OP shall comply with this order within two months of the receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from that date till date of actual payment. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal allowed.