JAI KUMAR Vs. PRINCE TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellantjai Kumar has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation granted to him by District Forum, Kurukshetra, against the respondent for deficiency in service regarding the transportation of his guests from Kaithal to Kurukshetra. The facts have been given in detail in the order of the District Forum and need not be repeated here.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that because of the non-availability of the bus of the respondent, which had been hired by him for the return of the Baraties he had to face excess expenditure on hiring taxies and he had also felt humiliation before his Baraties. Therefore, he had claimed a compensation of Rs. one lac, but the District Forum chose to award only a sum of Rs.2,000/-. It is contended by the learned Counsel, that the amount is grossly inadequate and does not even meet the extra cost of the fare spent by the appellant in taking Baraties back to Kurukshetra from Kaithal. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that when the bus reached the place from where the Baraties were to be taken, it was found that the Baraties had already left much earlier at 4.00 p. m. , whereas the time given to the driver of the bus was 6.00 p. m. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of respondent No.1.

(3.) It is clear from the order of the District Fomm that the bus reached the place from where the Baraties were to be taken back at 6.45 p. m. instead of 6.00 p. m. which was the scheduled time. Therefore, the delay on the part of the respondent is virtually admitted and the District Forum was quite right in awarding compensation to the appellant for the inconvenience and the extra expenditure caused due to the delayed arrival of the bus. The main claim of the appellant is for compensation on account of the humiliation suffered by him before the Baraties. It is not possible to compensate him for the said humiliation in consumer jurisdiction. However, as regards inconvenience and the extra expenditure incurred, there appears to be some justification in the claim of the appellant that the extra amount actually spent by him was more than Rs.2,000/-. We accordingly accept the appeal and increase this amount to Rs.4,000/-. The respondents are directed to pay the additional sum of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant within a period of one month, otherwise action may be taken against them under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act. If the amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the District Forum has not so far been paid, the same shall also be paid within one month.