JAGRUTI GRAHAK SURAKSHA MANDAL Vs. KHODIAR TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") is to the order dated 12.11.2009 in First Appeal bearing No. 635/2001 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein and concurred with the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City (for short "the District Forum"), which has dismissed the Complaint.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Veerjibhai Ukabhai Parmer, arrayed as Complainant No. 2, and his friends & relatives decided to tour Sourashtra and hired three luxury buses from First Opposite Party namely Khodiar Travels (hereinafter referred to as "the Travel Agency") owned by Second Opposite Party namely Bhimdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner"). The buses were hired @ Rs.9/- per k.m. On 15.05.1999 Complainant No. 2 paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- in cash to the Owner. Thereafter additional Rs.10,000/- was paid by the Second Complainant to the Travel Agency and thus in total Second Complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Opposite Parties for which a receipt was also issued by the Travel Agency. The tour was to commence from 17.05.1999 and be completed by 26.05.1999. It is stated that the buses sent by the Travel Agency i.e. GJ-1-U-1544, 1724 and GJ-7-4085 on 17.05.1999 were old and scrapped buses. Second Complainant refused to take the said buses on tour. The Owner assured him that the buses were in good condition and that there would be no difficulty. On his such assurance, Second Complainant started his tour in the said buses. On 19.05.1999, at morning hours when the buses were going from Anjar to Bhuj, tyre of bus bearing No. GJ-1U-1544 got punctured and the gear was locked. The driver repaired the gear and replaced the tube of the tyre. The said repairing work continued till 1.30 noon. The said bus could not go to Narayan Sarovar as it became out-of-order. The condition of the said bus was very bad. It is stated that the driver of the said bus drove the bus rashly and negligently and hence it hit Bus No. 4085 and due to the impact of the same, Bus No. 4085 had gone down below the road and the said bus was totally destroyed. One passenger namely Geetaben sustained injury. The tour had been stopped and the bus hearing No. 1724 only had carried out the passengers at Somnath Temple. Second Complainant called the Owner who sent another Bus for their return. During the entire tour, the buses had in total 14 punctures and for rectifying one puncture it took almost two hours and thus totally 28 hours were lost. Apart from this, the tyre of Bus No. 1544 exploded due to which 6 hours were lost. No spare tyres were kept in the buses despite the fact that it was a long tour. Second Complainant and his associates paid a total sum of Rs.33,865/- to the drivers of the buses during the tour and thus the total amount paid by them amounted to Rs.73,865/-. At the start of journey the meter reading of bus No. 1544 was 4320 and at the end of the journey, it was found to be 6336 k.m. and thus in the entire tour the said bus covered 2016 kms. and @ Rs.9/- per k.m. the total rent of the buses came to Rs.18,144/- of one bus and thus the total rent of three buses came to Rs.54,432/- and thus an amount of Rs.19,433/- remained due against the Travel Agency. Apart from that a sum of Rs.3200/- was also paid to the drivers and thus the total amount came to Rs.22,633/-. It was demanded but was not paid. Thus the Complainants filed the Complaint seeking payment of the said amount along with Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

(3.) The District Forum issued notice to the Opposite Parties but despite service they neither appeared before the District Forum nor filed their Written Version or any written/oral evidence.