PRABHAKARAN Vs. NEELA TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is by 57 persons. Complainant Nos.2 to 57 are represented by their Power of Attorney Agent-lst complainant. According to the complainants, the 1st complainant is their Guruswamy for their Sabarimala pilgrimage. The complainant Nos.2 to 57 are the devotees who wanted to go on a pilgrimage alongwith the 1st complainant. They wanted to engage a bus for that from the 1st opposite party-M/s. Neela Travels of which the 2nd complainant is the Managing Partner. The opposite parties agreed to provide a contract carriage bus with 57 authorised seats plus 1 conductor seat for 8 days from 1.1.1996 to 8.1.1996 for an amount of Rs.29.200/-. The 2nd opposite party gave a tour programme in his letter head to the complainants which was to commence at Madras and go through Thiruverkadu, Tiruthani, Melmaruvathur, Kovai, Marudhamalai, Porur, Palani and back to Madras. This tour programme was distributed among the complainants. Accepting this tour programme, the complainants paid an advance of Rs.1,100 /- on 19.11.1995; Rs.7,700/- on 13.12.1995; Rs.11,500/- on 23.12.1995 and Rs.7,000/- on 31.12.1995 and for these amounts the 2nd opposite party issued receipts. Regarding the remaining amount of Rs.2,300/-, it was agreed that it would be paid to the bus crew enroute as and when they damanded. The Irumudi pooja was fixed at 6.00 p. m. on 31.12.1995 at Ellamuthu Mariamman Koil. The 1st opposite party agreed to send the bus at that place at the early morning hours of 1.1.1996. But the opposite parties did not send the bus as agreed. Instead, at 10 a. m. the 1st opposite party sent three vans and the complainants were transported from Korukkupet to Thiruverkadu. The complainants were given to understand that the bus was already there at Thiruverkadu. But when they arrived at Thiruverkadu at 12 Noon no bus was there. They were waiting there in the open ground without any shelter for about 12 hours. At about 11 p. m. , a bus of the opposite parties with just 35 passenger seats came there. The complainants having already commenced their tour with the Irumudi pooja, they had no option but to get into that bus. Since there were no individual seats for all the passengers, many of them had to travel sitting on the floor of the bus. Their journey from Thiruverkadu upto Madurai was a nightmare and the complainants had undergone great hardship physically and mentally. Except for a brief halt on the way, the bus proceeded non-stop and arrived at Madurai at 9 a. m. on 2.1.1996. The complainants alighted from the bus at the Mariamman Teppakulam and from there the bus was taken away by the crew on the promise that they would come with a bus with 57 seats to take them to Sabarimala. On the way from Madras Thiruverkadu to Madurai, they were not taken to Tiruttani, Melmaruvathur, Tiruchi Samayapuram as agreed. They were deprived of worshipping God in those places. The crew did not come with a bus as they told. The complainants were left high and dry at Madurai from 2.1.1996 to 4.1.1996. After waiting for a few hours, the 1st complainant contacted the opposite parties at Madras through STD and the opposite parties assured the complainants that the bus would come for their journey. The 1st complainant made further STD calls and he received further assurance. For the STD calls, the complainants have spent a sum of Rs.400/-. Since the bus did not come, they lodged a complaint with the Teppakulam Police Station against the opposite parties. The Inspector contacted the opposite parties over phone and the opposite parties assured the Inspector also that the bus would arrive. The Inspector made arrangements for the complainants' stay at a choultry of the Mariamman Temple. On 4.1.1996, the 1st complainant submitted a Memorandum to the District Collector, Madurai for his intervention and to make the opposite parties to do the necessary arrangements for their onward journey. Due to the immediate action taken by the District Collector, the opposite parties sent four vans for the complainants' travel to Sabarimala, which arrived at 5 p. m. on that day. During their stay at Madurai, they underwent untold sufferings. The complainants proceeded in the four vans to Sabarimala and they reached Erimeli for their first religious rituals. The complainants had the practice of going through Periya Pathai to reach Sabarimala. But since the crew of the vans refused to wait for sufficient time at Pamba, the complainants travelled in the vans upto Pamba river. The complainants had to forego their rituals called Pamba Sathi at Pamba river and the payment for Viri for performing Kanni Pooja (for those going for the first time ). The complainants were compelled by the van crew to complete their dharshan at the Sannidhanam at Sabarimala and were forced to return on 6.1.1996 itself. The complainants, with very great difficulty, had the dharshan of Lord Ayyappa at the Sannidhanam and returned to the foothills at 9 a. m. The 1st complainant who was on his 18th pilgrimage trip to Sabarimala, the most sacred trip, had the bitter experience of skipping off many most important rituals to attain the glory of the 18th trip. The complainants reached back Madurai at about 11 p. m. on 6.1.1996. The agreed halts at Alagarkoil, Pazhamuthirsolai, Rameswaram, Tiruchendur, Kanyakumari, Susindram, Tiruvananthapuram, Padmanabhaswamy Koil, Pandalam, Eatumanoor, Vaikom, Chottanikarai, Kodungallur, Guruvayoor, Tiruchoor, Kovai, Porur and Palani were not made and thus the complainants were deprived of their visit to these sacred places and also they have been made to pay fare for the places not visited by them. Their journey in four vans was not comfortable as that of a bus. Once again they were made to stay at the Mariamman temple on the night of 6th January. Only on 7.1.1996 at about 1 p. m. a 35-seater bus was provided tor their return journey to Madras. The complainants went through once again the same hardship of travelling in a cramped manner for 300 miles non-stop. On 8.1.1996 at about 4 a. m. the complainants reached the Ellamuthu Mariamman Koil. For these reasons, the complainants had to cut short their original route of journey. Considering the circumstances, the complainants state that opposite parties should have received an amount of Rs.15,000/-in excess than the actually required. The opposite parties have committed gross deficiency in service. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite parties. (i) to return a sum of Rs.15,000/- being the excess fare collected; (ii) to pay the cost of STD calls, and payments to crew of Rs.2,000/-. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each of the complainants as compensation for mental agony, hardship, inconvenience and injury suffered by them.

(2.) The opposite parties in their written version contend that the complaint filed jointly by several complainants is not maintainable in law. It is wrong to say that the opposite parties sent the bus at Madras belatedly. The opposite parties have given a bus with the required capacity for the journey. The bus broke down at Madurai and, therefore, it was taken for repair, but before the repair could be effected the complainants insisted on immediate onward journey and, therefore, vans were arranged for their journey from Madurai to Sabarimala. It is not correct to say that enroute from Madras to Madurai several places were skipped off. The tour was conducted as per the schedule. The allegation that inspite of STD calls by the complainants the opposite parties did not arrange for an alternative bus, is false. During their brief halt at Madurai, the complainants were looked after in a fitting manner and the allegation of sufferings is not true. The complainants had finished their dharshan at Sabarimala and returned to Madras comfortably and they visited all the places as per the itinerary. The opposite parties are not liable to return the sum of Rs.15,000/- as claimed by the complainants. This Commission is not meant for solving civil disputes which require elaborate trial and, therefore, this Commission cannot solve it. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The points that arise for consideration are 1. Whether the complaint is not maintainable? 2. Whether the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in services?; and 3. If so, what relief can be granted to the complainants?