New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission VIII (Central), Delhi, has directed a bus transport operator to refund ₹14,000 and pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience caused to a complainant whose marriage procession was severely disrupted after the hired bus broke down midway, forcing him to arrange alternative transport at midnight.
The order was passed on 05.05.2026 by Dr. Rashmi Bansal, Member, along with Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President.
The complainant, Kapil Kumar, booked a bus from Opposite Party No. 2, Capricorn Transport Services, on 25.10.2022 for travel on 08.12.2022 from his residence in Mangolpuri, New Delhi, to Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, in connection with his marriage ceremony. An advance of ₹2,000 was paid on 25.10.2022, and a further sum of ₹12,000 was paid on 07.12.2022 against the agreed consideration of ₹18,500.
The bus was scheduled to depart at 2:30 PM on 08.12.2022. However, it arrived at 4:15 PM. The bus subsequently broke down midway, approximately 58 km from the destination, at around midnight. Despite repeated calls, the operator refused to intervene and advised the complainant to arrange an alternative vehicle. The complainant arranged another bus at night for ₹18,000 to take the Barat to the destination and arranged a further bus for the return journey to Delhi the next morning for ₹14,000. The Barat reached the destination at around 3:00 AM, well after the scheduled time for the marriage rituals.
The complainant sought a refund of the amounts paid and compensation of ₹5,00,000 for mental agony and disruption of the marriage ceremony.
Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the complaint was misconceived and devoid of any cause of action, and that the matter required adjudication by a civil court. It contended that the complainant had not paid the full agreed amount and had admitted payment of only ₹14,000, thereby breaching the agreement. It denied that the bus was late, that the driver was drunk, or that the bus was in poor condition with broken seats.
It further submitted that the route via Jewar also leads to Bulandshahr and that the driver was following directions given by a relative of the complainant who claimed knowledge of a shorter route. The operator also submitted that the breakdown occurred on a pothole-ridden dirt road onto which the driver had been guided using Google Maps, that a mechanic was immediately called, but the complainant refused to wait for repairs, and that no documentary proof had been filed regarding the alleged payments made for alternative buses.
The Commission rejected the preliminary objection that the matter required adjudication by a civil court, holding that the complaint pertained to deficiency in service falling within its jurisdiction.
On the question of payment, the Commission noted that the admitted receipt of ₹14,000 by Opposite Party No. 2 concluded the contract to that extent and that the operator could not subsequently deny its obligation on the ground of partial payment.
The Commission found that Opposite Party No. 2 had failed to establish that the bus reached the complainant’s residence on time. It noted that the breakdown midway at midnight was admitted, that the Barat reached the destination at around 3:00 AM, and that the bus was approximately 58 km from the destination at the time of the breakdown.
The Commission further found that Opposite Party No. 2 had failed to demonstrate what alternative arrangements were made to ensure that the complainant reached the destination, particularly given the importance of the occasion, and held that the failure to provide timely service and the absence of contingency arrangements after the breakdown clearly reflected deficiency in service.
The Commission took judicial notice of the fact that a marriage ceremony is a time-bound event and that delay in the arrival of the Barat causes inconvenience not only to the complainant but also to both families and guests, resulting in embarrassment, distress, and loss of dignity in a social setting. It held that the deficiency in the present case was not of an ordinary nature, as the service had been availed specifically for a marriage function, a fact well within the knowledge of Opposite Party No. 2.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh and Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, the Commission held that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act is not confined to actual financial loss but also extends to harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony, and that the amount awarded must recompense the complainant while also acting as a deterrent against arbitrary conduct by service providers.
However, the Commission found that the complainant had not filed sufficient documentary proof regarding the payment of ₹18,000 for the alternative bus arranged at midnight or the payment of ₹14,000 for the return journey, and accordingly declined to grant relief on those claims.
The Commission also recorded no finding of deficiency regarding the allegations that the driver was drunk, that the bus was in poor condition or making noise, or that the seats were broken, as these allegations were not established on record.
The Commission directed Opposite Party No. 2 to refund ₹14,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from 08.12.2022 till payment and to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience. Compliance was directed within 30 days, failing which the total amount of ₹64,000 would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum till realisation.
Case Details
- Case Title: Kapil Kumar v. Lakshmi Tourist Corp. and Capricorn Transport Services
- Case Number: DC/77/CC/122/2024
- Forum: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission VIII (Central), Delhi
- Bench: Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President; Dr. Rashmi Bansal, Member
- Date of Order: 05.05.2026
