Singh and his son had to make an alternate arrangement at the last moment and leave for Shimla without their relatives and friends. This, after already paying an advance to the taxi operator.

A year later, the taxi operator has been told to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to Singh. The District Consumer Forum said the operator adopted unfair trade practice, which caused harassment and humiliation to the groom’s family.

In his complaint, Prem Singh said he had booked six Qualis taxis with Satinder Kumar of Kanan Tours and Travels in Hallomajra for November 25, 2007. He was to pay Rs 2,000 per taxi, in addition to Rs 200 per driver for their night stay in Shimla. Singh said he paid an advance of Rs 1,500 to Satinder.

When the taxis didn’t arrive at the specified time on the scheduled date, Singh he rang up the operator at 8.30 am. He was told the taxis were on their way and would reach by 8.45 am. But they did not turn up even after half an hour. Thereafter, the complainant said, the taxi operator stopped responding to his calls, forcing Singh to make an alternative arrangement to go to Shimla.

Due to heavy schedule of weddings between November 24 and 28, Singh said, only one taxi could be arranged, and that too for Rs 3,000. As a result, only the groom and his immediate family members could go to the wedding and Singh had to apologise to his relatives and friends.

In his reply, Satinder denied receiving Rs 1,500 as advance. He pleaded that it was agreed that the complainant would make half the payment a day before the wedding. He said his efforts to contact the complainant on telephone failed and this way he suffered a loss.

The forum held that the fact that the wedding of Singh’s son was fixed for November 25 in Shimla was proved from the invitation card. It said the contention of the taxi operator that he did not receive Rs 1,500 was falsified from his own receipt. The forum said there was no such agreement between the parties to establish the fact that the groom’s family was supposed to make half the payment in advance.

“It appears that in order to earn more profit, the taxi operator may have diverted the taxis booked by the complainant to some other party and he may have charged more money from them. This is an unfair trade practice, which not only embarrassed the complainant but also humiliated him before his friends, relatives and particularly in the eyes of his son’s would-be in-laws,” said forum president Jagroop Singh Mahal.