SHRI KRISHNA TRAVELS vs S.Srinivasan

THIS appeal is by the opposite party-Company against which an award has been passed by the District Forum.

THE case of the complainant (respondent herein) is that he arranged with the opposite party for a tour bus for 53 passengers to be available on 14.8.94. THE agreement was entered into on 6.8.94 and of a particular bus number was agreed. THE total fare was fixed at Rs. 3,100/- and on the date of agreement an advance of Rs. 250/- was paid. It was agreed that the balance amount shall be paid on the date of the journey. THE complainant furnished the list of passengers to the opposite party. On the date of the tour proposed they were all waiting at an appointed place but the bus did not turn up. On account of this they suffered great disappointment and mental pain. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for granting a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- as compensation and for return of the advance amount of Rs. 250/-. The opposite party contested the complaint contend inter-alia that as per the agreement entered into on 6.8.94 the balance amount shall be paid one day prior to the date of the proposed tour and the complainant failed to pay the balance amount as agreed. Therefore, it was because of the fault of the complainant the bus was not made available for the tour and as such the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the case of the complainant is true and therefore he is entitled to compensation. However, it granted a compensation of Rs. 1,250/- only. Aggrieved by this order the opposite party has filed this appeal.

ON carefully going through the records we find that the appeal has to be allowed. The complainant himself has filed Ex. A3 as the copy of the agreement dated 6.8.94 between himself and the opposite party regarding the bus. The agreement Ex. A3 clearly states that deducting the advance amount, the balance amount of the total tour fare has to be paid on the previous day itself. The case of the complainant appears to be that even though the agreement states so, the opposite party consented that the balance amount can be paid on the date of tour itself. This is denied by the opposite party. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that there was such consent by the opposite party. This being the position we cannot go against the terms in the written agreement Ex. A3. In this position, cer tainly the complainant has failed to perform his part of the contract. He can come to Court with any grievance against opposite party only after himself having performed his part of the contract and not otherwise. Hence the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. The agreement Ex. A3 further states that if the balance amount is not paid on the previous day of the proposed tour the advance paid would be forfeited. In these circumstances, we cannot agree with the order of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It appears the complainant has filed a document which according to him shows that the concerned bus had been already assigned for some other tour on 14.8.94. But that may not be relevant unless as we have stated above the complainant has performed his part of the contract first and has come to the Court with clean hands. Thus considering we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.