Family late for baptism ceremony after hired cab doesn’t arrive, gets Rs 17,000 payout

Baptism ceremony

• According to the complainant, he booked a 24-seater Explorer traveller owned by the opposite party for his granddaughter’s baptism ceremony scheduled on January 17, 2026.
• It was stated that the total agreed hire charge was Rs 7,500, and an advance of Rs 2,000 was paid by the complainant on December 16, 2025.
• It was alleged that on the day of the journey, instead of the booked vehicle, the operator’s driver arrived with a different traveller, having only 19 seats.
• When the complainant contacted the operator, his calls allegedly went unanswered, and the driver left with the vehicle.
• The complainant stated that he hired another traveller from a different operator at a cost of Rs 32,000.
• Owing to the delay in arranging the replacement vehicle, the family reached the ceremony late, causing embarrassment before relatives and guests, the complaint stated.
• The complainant also lodged a complaint with the local police. It was stated that the opposite party failed to appear before the police station or settle the matter.
• Feeling aggrieved, the complainant moved consumer forum.
• The opposite party neither appeared before the commission nor filed a written version. The matter, therefore, proceeded ex parte.

‘Caused mental agony’

The commission examined the complainant’s affidavit and documentary evidence, including the advance payment receipt, the invoice and payment proof for the replacement vehicle, photographs of the booked and replacement vehicles, and the police complaint acknowledgment.

It noted that though the complainant failed to produce documentary proof of the agreed hire charge, the evidence established that the operator had received the Rs 2,000 advance.

It also found that the complainant paid Rs 32,000 for hiring another vehicle.

The commission held that the opposite party is bound to redress the grievances caused to the complainant.

Accordingly, the commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the Rs 2,000 advance, pay Rs 12,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs within 30 days.

It further ordered that in case of default, the refund and compensation amount of Rs 14,000 would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order until realisation.

Expert view

Speaking to The Indian Express, Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record and partner at PSL Advocates and Solicitors, Vipul Jai explained that while determining compensation for mental agony in consumer cases, consumer courts first determine the extent of the consumer’s sufferance caused by the acts or omissions of the opposite party and then award compensation commensurate with such injury.

“The quantum of compensation is inherently subjective and cannot be determined by any straitjacket formula,” he said.

Advocate Khushi Parmar from D.M. Harish & Co. pointed out that a consumer forum may award a reasonable lump-sum amount based on the nature of the deficiency in service and the inconvenience, harassment, and distress caused to the consumer.

Jai also clarified that where an ex parte order is passed by the district commission or state commission, the statutory remedy available to the aggrieved party is an appeal to the state commission and national commission, respectively.

Parmar said that the party may file an application for review before the same commission under Sections 40, 50 or 60, as applicable, seeking recall or setting aside of the ex parte order.

Takeaway

The ruling highlights that service providers in the travel and transport sector are accountable for honouring confirmed bookings, particularly for time-sensitive family events. The order shows that consumers can claim compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss caused by such lapses, even where the service provider chooses not to contest the proceedings.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala helpline: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Charged Rs 10 extra

In another case, a Kerala consumer commission directed the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation and costs to a customer after finding that it charged Rs 10 more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on a beer bottle.

The order passed by a bench comprising president George Baby and member Nishad Thankappan noted that charging excess MRP constitutes ‘unfair trade practice‘ and ‘deficiency in service’.

“Charging excess of MRP by opposite party constitutes “unfair trade practice” and “deficiency in service” as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in our considered view adequate compensation should be levied on the opposite party to change this trend,” the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta noted in its order dated June 3.