DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 15th February 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 51/ 2013
B. Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o Late B. Uttama Reddy,
Advocate, aged 44 years, Hindu, R/o Flat No. 101,
A - Block, R.R. Swagruha Apartments,
Opp. Om Shanthi Bhavan, Vivekananda Nagar,
Kadapa City and District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The M.D.
A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C
Kadapa. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 12-02-2014 in the presence of complainant as in person and Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for R1 & R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the resident of Kadapa city and practicing as Advocate and the respondent No. 2’s office is in the Kadapa and R1 is the superior officer of R2. The complainant got reserved two seats No. 11 & 12 in APSRTC Bus service No. 6007, Super Luxury service, departures at 22.40 hours on 01-6-2013 from Bangalor to Kadapa bus belongs to Kadapa Depot and boarded the bus with his daughter in time at Bangalore. The bus bearing No. AP 29 Z : 682 started from Bangalore at right time around 40 passengers were there in the said bus, most of them having reserved tickets and other were issued tickets by the conductor by name Sidhaiah, and the driver was B.V. Ramana. At 23:10 hours suddenly the bus was stopped by the driver after crossing the Hosakote tollgate as the head lights were not functioning on high way hardly 300 meters from the said toll gate and declared that the bus is failed, not started. The said toll gate is approximately 22 kms from the Bangalore bus station. Both the driver and conductor simply sat in the bus and told that they are trying to contact the MF, Kadapa for help, but failed to get any result even after trying for about an hour and declared that they are helpless as the said MF and Kadapa APSRTC staff is not responding. Meanwhile the passengers tried to get in contact through the toll free help line of APSRTC but in vain. During that period the conductor simply left the bus picking up his cash bag, tickets and other belongings leaving the passengers to their fate. Noticing the absence of the conductor the complainant questioned the driver on that he replied that the conductor absconded by taking his belongings and his cell is switched off. By that it was clear that he escaped from his duty leaving the customers of APSRTC to their fate in the mid night on the high way. On enquiry complainant came to know that the driver is not having any contact number of higher officials and kept on saying that the MF is not responding. Somehow complainant got the information from his family members that Kadapa Depot Manager is on leave and Badvel Depot Manager is in charge of Kadapa Depot and got cell number of in charge D.M. and contacted him and explained the situation to him, on that he told that he is in charge of Kadapa Depot and recklessly told that he do not know who is the RM and his contact number and told negligently that at that time he cannot send any mechanic to repair the bus and ended the call. On enquiry the complainant came to know from the driver that the said bus failed at Gurramkonda while coming to Bangalore and the driver somehow managed to take it to Madanapalli depot, where it was repaired and sent to Bangalore by this it is clear that the said bus was not in condition to travel on such a long distances and the repair works were done negligently and fully knowing that the said bus is not road worthy taken into service to cause irreparable loss and injury to the passengers on whose money the corporation is surviving.
3. The complainant submits that till next day 6.00 hours the passengers were forced to stay on high way helplessly, the in charge depot manager failed to discharge his duties with diligence and shouted irresponsibly on the passengers who tried to contact him and he deliberately kept on hold the calls for long period without answering all these amounts to deficiency of service from the APSRTC, who failed to respect the passengers and serve them with diligence. Due to the irresponsible attitude of the Depot Manager, who could have provided the alternate service or got the bus repaired it within 2 or 3 hours, negligently slept peacefully in his home even knowing the fact that service is broke down and passengers are suffering on high way and even failed to send the first bus reached to Bangalore as alternate service and leisurely sent the later arrived bus at 6.00 hours and caused unbearable mental agony and suffering, hence, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant for suffering and mental agony throughout the night. Both respondents received the registered legal notice dt. 3-6-2013 only from the office R1 a letter was sent in ordinary post to the complainant, which is not satisfactory to the complainant. The complainant is resident of Kadapa and the R2’s office is in Kadapa under whose region the Kadapa Depot is functioning and R1 is the higher official of APSRTC and the bus service failed belongs to the Kadapa Depot. Thus the forum is having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. A fee of Rs. 100/- is paid by way of I.P.O. Therefore the complainant prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to allow the complaint and pass orders in favour of the complainant directing the respondents (a) to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and their negligence and for the mental agony and suffering sustained by complainants, (b) to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs and other relief’s as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
4. The R2 filed a counter adopted by R1 with a memo. The complaint is unjust and not maintainable in law or on facts. The complainant is put to strict proof of all allegations made in the complaint which are not expressly admitted herein.
5. The complainant and others boarded the bus bearing No. AP 29 Z : 832 bearing service No. 6007 and that the bus stopped after coming to Hosakote is true. The bus was stopped due to electrical system failure and it was not there when the bus started at Bangalore and it suddenly occurred when the bus reached near Hosakote which is about 60 Kms from Majestic bus stop till then it was alright and so there is no negligence on the part of driver of the bus and the driver of the bus verified with the electrician when he started the bus and it was fine then and as there was electric system failure which can be rectified only by an electrician and the conductor of the bus has gone to bus stand to see whether there are any buses available for sending the passengers to their destination and the driver of the bus asked the passenger to board the buses which ply via Kadapa but the passengers did not board the buses as they were full as the day was Saturday on which the bus stopped due to electrical system failure.
6. There is no spare buses at Bangalore as the buses which go in the morning from A.P. will return back to A.P. by night and the buses which go to Bangalore at Night will return to their destination (place from which they start) in the morning only. So if any trouble is caused to bus then another bus has to be sent from the depot concerned and in the instant case the bus belonged to Kadapa depot and so a spare bus was sent by depot manager to Bagalore at 11.50 p.m and it reached Bangalore at 5.15 a.m and the passengers were asked to board the bus and it reached destination on Sunday at 11.15 a.m buses of other states have to go back to their respective states by night and only KSRTC buses will stay in the bus stop at Bangalore. So there is no negligence either on the part of depot manager in not sending spare bus immediately and on the part of driver who has made his best efforts and asked the passengers to board the buses which ply via Kadapa but as the passengers refused to board the bus he was unable to do anything and he was with the passengers till another bus was sent to Bangalore from Kadapa. Further in Karnataka state no other state buses will stay and all the other state buses other than KSRTC have to go back to their places by night. The allegations that the driver of the bus did not check the bus while it was coming to Kadapa from Bangalore is a false and baseless allegations. After checking the bus only the driver of the bus will board the bus and take the passengers and if it is not in a fit condition he will ask the passengers to get down and board another bus. In the instant case also the driver checked the bus but as he is not an electrician he cannot do anything with electric system failure.
7. The APSRTC depot Manager and the driver and conductor tried their level best to see that the passengers should not suffer and as stated supra the driver of the bus asked the passengers to board other buses plying via Kadapa but they did not board the same. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against the respondent in the interest of justice.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of there Respondents?
iii. To what relief?
9. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked.
10. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is admitted fact that the complainant boarded into the bus bearing No. AP 29 Z : 382 with service No. 6007 on 01-6-2013 from Bangalore to kadapa. It is also admitted fact that the bus breakdown at Hosakote tollgate with electrical problem. The bus was stopped in the mid night by 23.10 hours. It is very clear that the bus stopped in the mid night and it was long service bus, there will be all reserved passengers. It is very clear from the complainant that R1 and R2, the driver of the bus conductor of the bus was not taken any precautions or safety measures about the passengers. Without the passengers the APSRTC cannot survive. So it is deemed responsibility of the respondents 1 & 2, driver and conductor of the bus to take precautions about the passengers. Whenever, this type of sudden breakdown of the bus occurs as per the complaint. It is very clear that the R1 kept deaf eye for the request of the passengers by their mobile phones. In the bus there will be many passengers with ladies, gents and children in the mid night it is very difficult problem to all the passengers when the bus breakdown in the out skirts of the city. The respondent corporation should have taken minimum precautions to transport the passengers to the nearest depot. But they did not made any effort to do the same. It is not easy to say that it is very simple issue. The pain and suffering will be known to the passengers who suffered in the mid night only. Ex. A1 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to both the respondents. There is only reply letter from R2 to the complainant under Ex. A2. Ex. A4 clearly shows that the complainant along with his daughter travelled in the above said bus. From the above all averments and evidence it is very clear that there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the respondents 1 & 2. So the complaint is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
11. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed. Directing the Respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards deficiency of service, negligent on their part and mental agony to the complainant, Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousands only) in total to the complainant within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 15th February 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c registered legal notice dt. 3-6-2013.
Ex. A2 Letter No. E5/831 (N) 2013-RM-K, dt. 11-6-2013 of Regional Manager, Kadapa to Sri B. Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate.
Ex. A3 Acknowlegement card addressed to the M.D. APSRTC, Hyderabad.
Ex. A4 original tickets 2 nos.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) B. Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o Late B. Uttama Reddy,
Advocate, aged 44 years, Hindu, R/o Flat No. 101,
A - Block, R.R. Swagruha Apartments,
Opp. Om Shanthi Bhavan, Vivekananda Nagar,
Kadapa City and District.
2) Sri A. Rajesekhar, Advocate for respondents.
B.V.P.
