RAO TRAVELS vs H.K. KHULLAR

-THIS appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against order dated 24.3.2001 passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 501/2000- entitled Shri H.K. Khullar v. M/s. Rao Travels.

BY the impugned order, the learned District Forum found the appellant deficient in service on two counts and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,250/- to the respondent-Shri H.K. Khullar and also directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent had booked two seats with the appellant for journey to Char Dham i.e. Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri and had paid Rs. 9,000/- to the appellant for the above said purpose. According to the package, the journey was to start on 2.6.2000 at 9.00 p.m. from Delhi and was to end on 13.6.2000. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint filed by him was that bus started at midnight instead of 9.00 p.m. from Vasant Kunj and had to be changed at Modi Nagar. Moreover, the appellant did not provide a holy bath at Haridwar in the morning of 3.6.2000 as per the programme. It was further stated that the appellant did not provide North Indian food although payment was received for the same and there was no proper arrangement of stay in the hotels and also there was no guide with the bus. The respondent also stated that the driver of bus did not touch Yamunotri and thus the respondent was deprived of journey to one Dham. Moreover, the appellant also deviated from the programme. The Kedarnath yatra had to be undertaken before the journey to Badrinath but this was also not done. The respondent also alleged that excessive amount of Rs. 4,500/- per seat has been charged. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum to claim refund of Rs. 9,000/- paid to the appellant and also compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- for putting the lives of the complainant and others in danger.

The appellant (O.P. in the District Forum) admitted to have booked two seats in the bus for journey to Char Dham and also admitted that fare was inclusive of to and fro transportation, dormitory accommodation without bed and provisions for vegetarian food. It was stated by the appellant that journey was delayed due to non-arrival of other passengers. The appellant admitted that the bus proceeded to Rishikesh instead of Haridwar as some passengers had to be picked up from Saharanpur Railway Station. The appellant also admitted that the journey to Yamunotri could not be undertaken due to landslides. It was, however, denied that there was no adequate arrangement for hotel and lodges wherever necessary.

THE learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant relating to arrangement for staying. However, the learned District Forum found the appellant deficient in service on two counts. Firstly, that the respondent had to skip his holy bath at Haridwar in the morning of 3.6.2000 and secondly, that he had to miss the yatra of one Dham, namely, Yamunotri. THE learned District Forum gave these findings on the admission of the appellant on these two counts. However, no deficiency was found on the part of the appellant for not taking the bus to Yamunotri due to landslides. THE learned District Forum found that since the respondent had to miss one Dham, he should have been compensated in terms of money for the missed yatra. Accordingly, the learned District Forum directed the appellant to refund 1/4th of the amount paid by the respondent as compensation to the respondent for the missed journey to Yamunotri and also Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation. We have heard both the parties and have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have also carefully gone through the order of the learned District Forum. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the journey to Yamunotri could not be performed because of landslides which is beyond the control of the appellant and this fact had been noted by the District Forum in the order but still the respondent has been awarded compensation in terms of money which is untenable in the law. It was argued that a fact which is beyond the control of the appellant should not have been treated as deficiency in service. It was further argued that since some passengers were to be picked up from Saharanpur and hence journey to Haridwar could not be undertaken and the bus went directly to Rishikesh. It was argued that this trip could not have been taken only with two passengers.

WE have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. It is not in dispute that package was for journey to Char Dham and it also included a holy bath at Haridwar in the morning of 3.6.2000. It is admitted by the appellant before the District Forum that journey to Haridwar could not be undertaken and the journey to Yamunotri also could not be undertaken due to landslides. Since the package was for the yatra to Char Dham, it was incumbent on the appellant to refund th part of the fare charged from the respondent as instead of Char Dham yatra for only three Dham yatra was performed. The explanation given regarding skipping of holy bath at Haridwar is far from satisfactory. If the appellant had to pick up the passengers from Saharanpur they should not have included the holy dip at Haridwar in the package. It must have caused mental agony to the respondent. The learned District Forum has not awarded any compensation for skipping the holy bath of Haridwar. However, for the missed journey to Yamunotri, the District Forum has ordered payment of the 1/4th of the amount of the total amount paid by the respondent to the appellant by way of compensation. In our opinion, the findings of the learned District Forum cannot be said to be unjust or against the provisions of law. Admittedly, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in not undertaking the journey to Yamunotri, of course it was beyond the control of the appellant but in quity and fair play the appellant should have been refunded 1/4 fare to the passengers, if the complete yatra could not be undertaken for any reason. Hence in this respect, the amount awarded by the learned District Forum as compensation cannot be said to be unjust or excessive in the given facts. The amount awarded as cost of litigation also does not appears to be excessive as the respondent had to file a complaint for this petty amount and had to engage the services of a lawyer besides spending money on other formalities. The order of the District Forum is well discussed and well reasoned order and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum hence the appeal is dismissed. In view of the circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.