Padma Pandey, Member1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.05.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh, vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.424 of 2018.2. In the complaint case before the Forum (now District Commission) the only allegation leveled by the complainant that he was to take a flight from IGI Airport, New Delhi to Toronto (Canada) on 09.08.2018, for which, he booked volvo bus ticket and boarded the same from Chandigarh on 08.08.2018 but due to some mechanical defect, it departed after a delay of half an hour. Thereafter, the said bus was stopped at Karan Lake near Karnal and it did not start due to some default in the engine and the Opposite Parties could not provide any alternate transport to the passengers, therefore, the complainant hired the taxi, for which, an amount of Rs.2200/- was paid but when he reached the airport, boarding of the said flight was closed, as such, he missed his flight.3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.4. At the time of arguments, nobody appeared on behalf of both the parties. On the next day i.e. 24.02.2021, authority letter of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Clerk from the office of the respondents has been received from the office of this Commission. We have gone through the evidence, record of the case, carefully and written arguments filed by the parties.5. The appellant/complainant stated in the appeal as well as written arguments that due to fault in the engine of volvo bus, it could not be started and assured for alternate bus, but due to non availability of alternate bus, the complainant had to go to airport at their own. He further stated that the conductor/driver did not follow the guidelines issued by the concerned authority and did not provide the alternate transport, due to which, he missed his international flight and he was forced to book a new flight on 10.08.2018 for Canada, for which, he had to pay Rs.78,000/-, which amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal filed by the complainant.6. On the other hand, the respondents/Opposite Parties has stated in their written arguments that the appellant/complainant booked the volvo bus ticket online and the said bus broke down at Karnal about 6.30 PM. He further stated that the driver and conductor tried to get the bus started but it did not start. A mechanic from Karnal bus depot was also called to repair the same but the said defect could not be removed and it was sudden break down, hence beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. They further stated that the passengers who were travelling in the bus were boarded in another volvo bus and ordinary bus but some of the passengers did not board in the said buses and hired private vehicle at their own. They further stated that as per terms and conditions (Annexure OP-2), the trips are subject to cancellation or postponement due to break down of the vehicle or insufficient passengers for the trip. Under such circumstances, the passengers will be intimated through email/phone as soon as possible and e-ticket amount will be refunded. They further stated that the complainant did not book the ticket online, so he vide office memo No.810/TAC dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure OP-3) informed that he could get the refund by visiting the office personally. They further stated that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.7. After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.8. The only point for consideration before us is as to whether there was any fault on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties. According to the complainant, he booked the volvo bus from Chandigarh, which was to depart from Chandigarh at 4.00 PM on 08.08.2018 and its scheduled time for reaching airport was round 10.00 PM and flight was to take off at 1.15 AM on 09.08.2018, therefore, the appellant had booked the bus well in time. After going through the record, we are of the view that it was not fault on the part of the Opposite Parties because there was a sudden break down of the said volvo bus at Karan Lake near Karnal, which was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. With regard to arrangement of alternate bus, perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that €œIt has come on record that the Opposite Parties had arranged an alternative Bus for the further travel of the passengers.€ Moreover, in the written arguments of the Opposite Parties stated that the passengers who were travelling in the bus in question were boarded in another volvo bus and ordinary bus but some of the passengers did not board in the said buses and went hiring the private vehicle at their own. In the present case, the schedule of the complainant was that he departed from Chandigarh at 4.00 PM, reached at IGI Airport at 10.00 PM and flight was to take off for Toronto at 1.15 AM. If we count from 10.00 PM to 1.15 PM, the time was only 3 hours and 15 minutes. In the normal course, the passengers should reach at the airport 2-3 hours prior to boarding. So, it is clear cut case that the complainant did not take enough precautions to reach early at the airport. Nobody knows at what stage the mechanical defect would occur in the said bus. If for the sake of arguments, we presume that the complainant booked a taxi to reach at the airport and it broke down in the midway then who was at fault ? The complainant should have at least planned to reach at the airport 7 -8 hours prior to the flight so that if something wrong happens, he could have tackled it. But in the present case, the complainant did not take precautionary measures and hence missed his flight. Moreover, the Forum (now District Commission) while passing the impugned order rightly said that €œthe Complainant is himself responsible for missing the flight, as he had not taken sufficient caution to start reasonably early to reach the airport in time and take care of delay due to risk of any vehicle break down/traffic jam.€ The respondents/Opposite Parties in their written arguments clearly stated that as per terms and conditions of volvo bus (Annexure OP-2), the trips are subject to cancellation or postponement due to break down of the vehicle or insufficient passengers for the trip and under such circumstances, the passengers will be intimated through email/phone as soon as possible and e-ticket amount will be refunded. In the present case, the complainant did not book the ticket onli
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ne, so the Opposite Parties vide memo No.810/TAC dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure OP-3) informed that he could get the refund by visiting the office personally. So, we are of the view that there was no fault on the part of the Opposite Parties.9. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum (now District Commission) is upheld.10. Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.