The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the transport service provider to pay up ₹64,000 along with interest to the man after the bus hired for his wedding barat allegedly broke down midway, causing major delay and inconvenience during the ceremony.
According to a report from Bar and bencha consumer forum blamed the carrier for “lack of service”, noting that delays during wedding ceremonies can result in emotional distress and embarrassment for families and guests.
The order was approved by Commission Chairperson Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Rashmi Bansal.
Commissions Weddings are “time sensitive”
While hearing the case, the Commission emphasized the importance of timely arrangements during marriages, especially during traditional ceremonies such as the barat procession.
“Having regard to the nature of the occasion, the extent of the inconvenience caused, the delay in achieving the objective and the resulting mental agony and social embarrassment suffered by the complainant, this Commission is of the view that the compensation should be just, reasonable and commensurate with the circumstances of the case,” the Commission observed.
Read also | Shubman Gill stunned by Danny Morrison with ‘no wedding bells?’ question
The forum eventually ordered the shipping service provider to refund the money ₹14,000 along with 6% interest per annum from the date of travel. It also appreciated ₹50,000 as compensation for “mental agony, harassment and inconvenience”.
The commission further said that the amount must be paid within 30 days or the operator would have to pay 9% annual interest until the payment is made.
The bus reportedly arrived late on the wedding day
According to the complaint, the man booked a bus on October 25, 2022 for his wedding barat scheduled on December 8, 2022 from Delhi to Bulandshahr.
The agreed amount for the reservation was ₹18,500. The complainant said he paid ₹2000 in advance and more ₹12,000 per day before travel.
According to the complaint, the bus was expected to arrive at 2:30 pm on the day of the wedding, but it allegedly got almost two hours late, causing inconvenience to relatives and guests who had gathered for the procession.
Read also | Dhurandhar 2 OTT: Ranveer Singh’s film will make its digital debut soon
The situation is said to have worsened later in the night when the vehicle reportedly took a longer route through Jewar and broke down around midnight.
Stranded Midway Wedding Procession
The complaint stated that the wedding procession got stuck almost 58 km before reaching the destination.
Faced with an emergency situation late at night, the complainant allegedly had to arrange for a replacement vehicle to allow the bar to continue.
The procession finally arrived at the wedding venue around three in the morning, several hours after the planned wedding rituals.
The Commission took note of the circumstances and noted:
“In the case at hand, the complainant was forced to provide alternative transport at midnight in exigent circumstances, causing considerable anxiety, stress and mental agony. OP2’s conduct resulted in avoidable disruption of the wedding procession and subsequent hardship for the complainant.”
Transport operator failed to provide timely assistance: Commission
The commission also noted that the transport operator failed to demonstrate that the bus arrived at the pick-up point on time or that effective contingency measures were taken after the breakdown.
According to the order, even if the route chosen could be considered acceptable, the operator could not avoid liability when the bus broke down during the journey and timely assistance was not provided.
Read also | Airlines oppose steep fares proposed at Navi Mumbai, Noida airports
The forum additionally rejected the operator’s argument regarding partial payment.
“It is settled that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act is not limited to actual financial loss, but also extends to compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental anguish. In cases where the deficiency affects an important personal event, the impact of such deficiency becomes more significant,” the Commission noted.
The Commission stated that once the operator accepts ₹14,000, a binding obligation arose from the complainant to provide the agreed transport service.
