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

4 min readNew DelhiJun 23, 2026 10:00 AM IST

The complainant stated that he hired another vehicle to reach the location. (Image generated using AI)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kannur has directed a travel operator to refund Rs 2,000 and pay Rs 17,000 towards compensation and litigation costs for allegedly failing to provide the vehicle booked for a family’s journey to a baptism ceremony.

President Ravi Susha and members Molykutty Mathew and Sajeesh K P observed that the act of the opposite party had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.

“We hold that the OP (travel operator) is liable to refund Rs 2000 as the advance amount to the complainant, along with Rs 12,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost,” the order dated June 5 read.

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.

Story continues below this ad

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.

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.

Story continues below this ad

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.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.

Expertise

Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents.

Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes:

Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity.

Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes:

Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law.

Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates.

Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court