PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
Consumer Complaint No.- 174/2024
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,
Shishir Kumar Samal, Aged about 59 years.
S/O-Late Mahadev Samal
R/O-Bramhanamara, PO- Dudurkote, PS-Balimee, Dist-Dhenkanal,
At present residing CPI office (BramhanaSahi), PO- ChandidniChowk,
PS-Lalbag, Dist-Cuttack. ……….......Complainant.
Vrs.
- Hota Bus, represented through its owner/proprietor Sribanta Hota,
At- RathaSahi, PO/PS-Rairakhol, Dist-Sambalpur.
- R.T.O. Sambalpur, R.T.O. Office,
At/po/Ps-Maneswar, Dist-Sambalpur.
- Transport Commissioner(Near High Court)
PO-ChandiniChowk, Ps-Lalbag, Dist-Cuttack. ...……….Opp. Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. S.Samal & Associates
- For the O.P.No.1 :- Sri. G.Pradhan, Adv.
- For the O.P. No.2 & 3 :- Sri. A.K. Senapati, G.P.
Date of Filing:24.05.2024, Date of Hearing :21.10.2024, Date of Judgement :02.12.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that on 13.05.2023 the Complainant was coming from Angul by Hota Bus(non-stop) at 6.30 A.M to Sambalpur to attend C.P. Case No. 58/2023 before Family Court, Sambalpur. Seat No.1 was allotted on payment of Rs. 200/- in bus No. Od-15V-4794. The bus was to reach Sambalpur at 10.00 A.M. Adamently the conducton replied that the bus will reach by 11 A.M. The bus was plying ‘Jhuli jhuli’ and reached Sambalpur at Dhanupali 12 Noon. Although it was an express non-stop bus moved slowly with overloaded passengers which violates the M.V. Act. The family judge waited till 12 noon and adjourned the case to 20.05.2024. The O.P.No.2 was telephoned but he denied to talk with the Complainant. Being harassed complaint has been filed.
- The O.P.No.1 in reply submitted that Sribatsa Hota/Sribanta Hota is not the owner of the vehicle No. OD-15V-4794. Since last 7 years construction work of four lane N.H. 55 from Cuttack to Sambalpur is going on. The road condition is very bad and there is traffic problem. Services given in express and limited buses have no meaning on the said road. There is no cause of action for the complaint and case is liable to be dismissed.
- The O.P.No.2 & 3 have not filed any version.
- The Complainant filed a bus ticket wherein seat number 1 and amount has been mentioned. The Complainant filed some photographs of the vehicle and passengers standing inside the bus. The O.Ps not filed any documents.
- The Complainant filed the Complaint simply starting that the O.P.no.1 is the owner/proprietor of the vehicle and no documentary evidence has been filed. Secondly the bus ticket filed does not bear the vehicle number and date of journey. As per Motor Vehicles Rules the ticket issued by the conductor is not proper. Thirdly the Complainant submitted the photographs which prove that there was over loading on the vehicle and it is within the knowledge of the O.P.No.2 & 3. After receipt of notice also the O.P.No.2 & 3 not filed any version even not disclosed who is the owner of the vehicle and status of the bus. It proves that the O.P.No.2 is not performing his duty given under the Motor Vehicles Act, and accordingly not felt proper to submit the status of the bus, knowing fully well that the buses are not plying in time, issuing tickets at per their sweet will and harassing the passengers by overloading.
As the Complainant failed to establish that the O.P.No.1 is owner/proprietor of the vehicle, the Complaint has no merit. The O.P.No.2 and 3 being the head of the transport department are directed to ensure as follows:-
- The bus owners should reflect on the bus the name of the owner, category of bus, insurance details etc. as per the M.V. Act.
- Ensure that the vehicles are plying in time.
- The buses are not overloaded in the district.
With this observation the complaint is closed. Inform the parties accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd day of Dec, 2024.
Supply frees copies to the parties.
