VIPUL TRAVELS Vs. ASHKARANBHAI MEGHRAJBHAI SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainants alleged to have entered into a contract of tour programme of Ahmedabad-Goa-Mahabaleshwar-Bombay-Ahmedabad with the opponent Vipul Travels for the period 7.11.1991 commencing at 6.30 p. m. to 17.11.1991 ending at 7 a. m. and made payment by way of deposit of Rs.15,000/- and further payment of Rs.5,000/- in two breaks, in all Rs.25,000/-. Balance agreed amount of Rs.30,000/- was to be paid during the tour as and when required. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was however paid as the opponent required it for payment of RTO tax saying that the bus would not be provided if such payment was not made. List of passengers was also provided to the opponent. The opponent also informed that bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-T-5245 would be made available. Yet, the opponent failed to send the bus on 7.11.1991 as agreed. The complainants have alleged telephonic and personal communication between complainant No.1 Shri Ashkaranbhai Soni and opponent's concerned person. Yet, the bus could not be arranged till 9.11.1991 and, therefore, the complainants alleged to have suffered great hardship and to have arranged another tour of places like Udaipur, Shrinathji in Rajasthan. The complainants, therefore, alleged to have suffered loss and prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.52,000/- and return of the amount paid by them to the opponent over and above cost quantified at Rs.10,000/- for another tour undertaken by the complainants. The opponent resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the amount was accepted by the opponent as per the terms and conditions printed overleaf the receipt issued by the opponent. The opponent also informed the complainants that bus would be provided subject to its arrival from Junagadh/dhari and that too after the list of passengers was received from the complainants. After such list was received, opponent obtained permit from the RTO (Regional Transport Office ). The opponent accordingly denied the allegation with regard to actual fixation of time of arrival of bus at 6.30 p. m. on 7.11.1991. However, as the bus did not arrive from Junagadh for making it available to the complainants on 7.11.1991, the opponent suggested alternative to the complainants for travel by daily bus service from Ahmedabad to Nasik with a further offer that the opponent would send the bus to Nasik on 9.11.1991 with a view to continue the tour programme. The opponent also obtained permit upon payment of Rs.4,800/- to the RTO, paid Rs.10,000/- as deposit and Rs.1,000/- for making arrangement of cook. The opponent made payment for good food and hotel booking by making payment of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The complainants, however, obtained writing on 9.11.1991 from the opponent under duress/threat. The opponent asserted that the bus could not be utilised for a period of 10 days and, therefore, the opponent sustained loss in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. Thus, the opponent would not be answerable to the claim in the complaint whereas the complainants would be answerable to the loss sustained by the opponent, who alleged that the complainants would be liable to pay to opponent Rs.81,000/- in all.

(2.) It transpires that complainant's evidence was recorded before the learned Forum. However, on the last date of recording of the evidence, no one was present for the opponent and, therefore, the matter went ex parte. Since there was no supporting evidence for the case put up by the opponent, the learned Forum directed the opponent to pay total compensation of Rs.57,500/- inclusive of return of the amount paid by the complainant and interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from 1.12.1991 and cost quantified at Rs.2,500/-.

(3.) By consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, they were permitted to adduce evidence before this Commission instead of remanding the matter to the learned Forum. Accordingly, the opponent placed necessary documents with affidavit on the record of this Commission. The complainant's witness was permitted to be cross-examined. The opponent's witness was also permitted to be cross-examined. It may be noted that the complainant No.1 had represented the cause of complainants all throughout and he was cross-examined before this Commission.