Skip to content


Proprietor and Manager, Veega Holidays and Parks Private Ltd. Vs. Ranjith Proprietor, Devi Textiles and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided On

Case Number

FIRST APPEAL No. 320 of 09, (Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Wayanad in CC.43 of 08)

Judge

Appellant

Proprietor and Manager, Veega Holidays and Parks Private Ltd.

Respondent

Ranjith Proprietor, Devi Textiles and Another

Excerpt:


.....informed that the park will not be opened on the particular day can not be relied as no prudent person would have conducted a journey on the hartal day if such intimation was received. 6. there is no representation for the complainant/opposite party. i find that it is mentioned in the complaint itself that on the particular day it was hartal declared by the bjp. hence the difficulty of the appellant to open the amusement park has to be appreciated. the complainant ought to have contacted opposite party/appellant in such circumstances before undertooking the trip of the amusement park on a hartal day. in the circumstances i find that it appears that that it was for reasons beyond the control of the appellants that the park could not be opened on the particular day. in the circumstances the order of the forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Judgment:


JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

The 1st opposite party in CC.43/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad is the appellant . The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation and cost.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he had booked the entry to the Amusement park run by the 1st opposite party for visit on 1.11.2007. It was the trip along with the workers of the shop owned by the complainant. Booking was made on 26.10.2007 through the 2nd opposite party. The day fixed for the journey happened to be a hartal declared by the BJP. On knowing about the hartal the complainant had contacted the opposite party and the opposite party confirmed the booking. The complainant hired 2 vehicles and reached the park at 5.30AM on 1.11.07. But the park was not opened for the entire day. He has claimed the rent of the vehicles amounting to Rs.14850/- incidental expenses Rs.10000/- Rs.25000/- as compensation.

3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the technicians and other experts who are necessary for running of gadgets in the park could not reach the park on account of the hartal. Hence the park could not be opened. No amount has been received in advance and that those who booked for visiting the park were intimated.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPW1, OPW2; Exts.A1 to A8.

5. The Forum has found that the version of opposite parties that the complainants were informed that the park will not be opened on the particular day can not be relied as no prudent person would have conducted a journey on the hartal day if such intimation was received.

6. There is no representation for the complainant/opposite party.

I find that it is mentioned in the complaint itself that on the particular day it was hartal declared by the BJP. Hence the difficulty of the appellant to open the Amusement park has to be appreciated. The complainant ought to have contacted opposite party/appellant in such circumstances before undertooking the trip of the Amusement park on a hartal day. In the circumstances I find that it appears that that it was for reasons beyond the control of the appellants that the park could not be opened on the particular day. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //