The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi held Capricorn Transport Services liable for deficiency in service after a hired bus broke down and delayed a marriage Barat. The court awarded Rs.50,000 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi, held Capricorn Transport Services liable for deficiency in service after a bus hired for a marriage procession (Barat) broke down and failed to reach the destination on time.
The Commission, chaired by President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Dr. Rashmi Bansal, ordered the service provider to refund the advance amount and compensate the groom for the mental agony and social embarrassment caused by the incident.
The complainant, Kapil Kumar, booked a bus on October 25, 2022, for travel from Delhi to Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh), scheduled for December 8, 2022, to transport his wedding procession. He agreed to a total hire amount of Rs.18,500 and paid Rs.14,000 as an advance.
ALSO READ: Rs 5 Lakh Fine on Drishti IAS: CCPA Exposes Misleading UPSC Selection Claims for 2022
As per the complainant, the bus was supposed to start at 2:30 PM but arrived only at 4:15 PM. He further alleged that the driver was intoxicated, the condition of the bus was poor with broken seats, and the vehicle was routed incorrectly via the Jewar Toll.
The complainant stated that the bus later broke down around midnight (approximately 12:00 AM), nearly 58 km short of the destination. As a result, the Barat reportedly reached the wedding venue at 3:00 AM, missing the scheduled time for the marriage rituals.
The Opposite Party (OP2), Capricorn Transport Services, argued that the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions and contended that the allegations required detailed evidence suitable for a civil court. OP2 denied the claim of delay, stating that any postponement occurred because the complainant waited for his relatives.
Regarding the breakdown, OP2 submitted that the driver was acting on instructions given by a relative of the complainant, who guided the route using Google Maps through a pothole-ridden dirt road. OP2 also claimed that a mechanic was called immediately, but the complainant refused to wait.
Additionally, OP2 disputed the complainant’s claim that he arranged alternative transport for Rs.32,000, pointing out that the complainant did not produce documentary proof.
The Commission rejected OP2’s preliminary objection on jurisdiction, holding that the dispute involved deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. It noted that the receipt of Rs.14,000 was not in dispute and observed that once the amount was accepted, the contract stood concluded.
The Commission concluded that OP2 did not establish that the bus arrived on time and also failed to show that any contingency arrangements were made after the midnight breakdown.
The bench recorded,
“The failure to provide timely service and absence of contingency arrangements after breakdown clearly reflect deficiency in service on the part of the OP2.”
On the effect of the delay, the Commission observed,
“A marriage ceremony is a time-bound event, and delay in arrival of the Barat causes inconvenience not only to the complainant but to both families and guests, resulting in embarrassment, distress, and loss of dignity in a social setting.”
While the Commission found deficiency in service relating to the delay and breakdown, it held that the complainant had not proved allegations regarding the driver’s intoxication or the poor physical condition of the bus. It also rejected the claim for the expenses of alternative transport due to absence of receipts.
Citing the Supreme Court decisions in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh and Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, the Commission reiterated that compensation must be just, reasonable, and commensurate with the loss and injury suffered.
Accordingly, the Commission directed OP2 to,
- Refund Rs.14,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from December 8, 2022.
- Pay Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and social embarrassment.
The order required compliance within 30 days. It further stipulated that if the directions were not complied with within the stipulated time, the entire sum of Rs.64,000 would carry interest at 9% per annum.