A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi recently directed a transport service provider to pay a man ₹64,000, with interest, as compensation after a bus hired for his barat (celebratory groom's wedding procession in North India) broke down midway.
President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Rashmi Bansal found the service provider guilty of deficiency in service.
The consumer forum emphasised that marriage ceremonies are time-sensitive in nature and delays can cause embarrassment and distress not only to the parties directly involved but also to their families and guests.
“Considering the nature of the occasion, the extent of inconvenience caused, the delay in reaching the destination, and the resultant mental agony and social embarrassment suffered by the complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that compensation should be just, reasonable, and proportionate to the circumstances of the case,” added the Commission.
Accordingly, the Commission directed the transport service provider to refund ₹14,000 with 6% annual interest from the date of the journey and to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience.
The complainant had made the booking on October 25, 2022 for his barat scheduled on December 8, 2022, from Delhi to Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh. He had paid ₹2,000 in advance and ₹12,000 a day prior to the journey against a total agreed amount of ₹18,500.
According to him, the bus, which was to arrive at 2:30 PM on the wedding day, was delayed by nearly two hours, causing inconvenience to family members and guests assembled for the barat.
The situation worsened when the bus allegedly took a longer route via Jewar and broke down around midnight, leaving the wedding procession stranded approximately 58 km short of the destination.
The complainant was compelled to arrange another vehicle under urgent circumstances to ensure that the wedding procession could proceed. The barat ultimately reached the venue at around 3:00 AM, well past the scheduled time of rituals.
Taking note of the events, the Commission held,
“In the present case, the complainant was compelled to arrange alternative transport at midnight under emergent circumstances, causing considerable anxiety, stress, and mental agony. The conduct of the OP2 has resulted in avoidable disruption of the marriage procession and consequent hardship to the complainant.”
The Commission noted that the transport provider had failed to demonstrate that the bus reached the pickup point on time or that any meaningful contingency arrangements were made after the breakdown.
It observed that even if the route taken was arguably viable, the operator could not escape liability once the vehicle failed mid-journey and no timely assistance was ensured.
It further held that once the operator accepted ₹14,000 from the complainant, a binding obligation arose to provide the agreed service, and the plea of partial payment could not be used to deny responsibility.
“It is settled that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act is not confined merely to actual financial loss but also extends to compensation for harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony. In cases where the deficiency affects an important personal event, the impact of such deficiency assumes greater significance,” noted the Commission.
The Commission directed that the compensation amount must be paid within 30 days, failing which it will attract 9% annual interest until payment is made.
[Read Order]