BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 14th November 2016
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.105/2013
(Admitted on 04.04.2013)
Sri. P.M. Tantri,
S/o Late P. Mukhyaprana Tantri,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at Padma Rekha, 7 7,
Odala, Belalu Road, Ujire 574240,
Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: BNK)
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, Mangalore division,
Bejai Post, Mangalore 575004,
2. Chief Traffic Manager,
Transport House, Central Office,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore 560027.
…............OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2: Sri. MR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The admitted facts by rival parties in this case are that the complainant on 9.12.2012 by purchasing tickets travelled from Mangalore to Pune in regular Airavat Club Class Volvo Ac Bus by paying Rs.1,946/ as consideration for two tickets issued by opposite party. At the same time the complainant purchased return ticket from Pune to Mangalore for two seats for Rs.4,048/ and under took the journey both way.
It is further case of complainant when the person at the counter issued the ticket and ongoing through the same the complainant was shocked and surprised to note the amount mentioned in the tickets for two seats was Rs.4,048/. An enquiry at the counter the complainant was informed that it will be a special bus and was not in a position to give proper reply and behaved rudely with the complainant. It is further claimed that normal fare is Rs.943/ and whereas the seasonal fare for Christmas it was Rs.1,424/. But the opposite party collected for Rs.2,024/ from the complainant which was illegal and against natural justice.
The complainant further contends the bus which was supposed to be traveled back on 22.12.2012 the complainant arrived at the KSRTC Bus Stand at 18.05pm and did not get the vehicle parked at one place. The passengers had to move round behind the bus where the complainant and his wife being senior citizens carrying two heavy luggages running behind the bus for almost 15 minutes. The complainant is a Heart patient and his wife is Thyroid patient. The bus was supposed to leave at 18.15 hrs. was seen at the bus stand even after 19 hrs. The bus was of inferior quality was ordinary Airavath Volvo, as regular Airavath Club class the fare which was less than in which the complainant and his wife travelled.
The bus was supposed to stop at Nataraj Hotel for food but it was stopped before Daba between Karad Kolhapur around 22.10 hrs. where there was no basic facilities such as Toilets, drinking water and no cleanliness and was highly Un hygienic.
When complainant approached opposite party personally no proper response was given and several letters were written to opposite party. But the attitude of opposite party is mainly monopoly in nature and they are making false commitments to escape from liabilities. Hence seeks direction to opposite party to pay Rs.2,102/ collected excess illegally with interest at the rate of 18% and Rs.1,00,000/ as compensation towards mental agony financial loss due to negligence of opposite party and cost Rs.5,000/ towards complaint.
II. The opposite party in written version further states as the operation from Pune to Mangalore was one side operation as the bus had to travel empty from Mangalore to Pune to render operation on that particular day special fare was charged. The bus bound from Pune to Mangalore and left the prefixed stand on schedule time with all seats being full as being booked well in advance. If the complainant felt the fare from Pune to Mangalore is exorbitant it was within his power to refuse the purchasing of ticket and go to some other service provider. There was no compulsion for the complainant to purchase ticket from the opposite party since there are umpteen number of travel operators from Pune to Mangalore and Vice-versa. It was to complainant to cancel the ticket on the spot itself on the ticket counter at Mangalore. But the complainant without any whisper being convinced had travelled and utilized the services of opposite party has now adapted to this scheme and tactics to make unlawful gain. The claim that the bus from Pune to Mangalore was of inferior quality and ordinary Airavat is not correct and was of Club Class Volvo Ac bus. The contention that the bus stopped at daba between Karada Kolhapur around 22.10 hrs. and there was no basic facilities like toilets, drinking water and cleanliness is also denied. Contending that complainant is not entitled for any of the said relief seeks dismissal of complaint.
In support of the above complainant Mr. P. M. Tantri filed affidavit evidence as Cw1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex C1 to C11 detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. S Chandrashekar (Rw1) Divisional Traffic Officer also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex R1 detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant purchased tickets in question for travel in the bus of opposite party as service provider and as such complainant is a customer is undisputed. That the complainant raised an objection as to the charge for the return journey from Pune to Mangalore for two tickets Rs. 4,048/ which is contested by complainant after paying the charges and undertaking the journey. The case of the complainant is that the complainant has charged excess amount than the charges collected from complainant and his wifes journey from Mangalore to Pune on 9.12.2012 as such there is a consumer dispute between the parties. Hence the answer point No.1 is in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): The only question for consideration in the case is whether the opposite party was justified in charging higher amount for the return journey on 22.12.2012 than the amount collected for the journey to Pune on 9.12.2012 from Pune to Mangalore. Interrogatories served on complainant on above of opposite party 1 is to there was no compulsion to the complainant to buy the return ticket for the journey for the date on 22.12.2012. Further no reply of affidavit to this interrogatories were filed by complainant.
This shows complainant has no explanation on this count. It was open to the complainant when he tendered on his own. The amount on opposite party and if tickets were purchased at the counter of opposite party No.1 is not in dispute, it was open to complainant to refuse to buy the return ticket at higher amount. It is be noted the journey from Mangalore to Pune is undertaken by the complainant and by his wife on 9.12.2012 under Ex C1. The return journey was undertaken after the buying the ticket from opposite party No.1 on 22.12.2012 under Ex.C2. Ticket Ex.C1 was purchased on 19.11.2012 at 02.06 pm at UDP, SHVUDP, UDP TRIPSHEET COUNTER and the return ticket Ex.C2 was purchased at MNG, SUD, MNG BOOKING COUNTER 2 on 9.12.2012 at 2.00pm.
It is seen from the allegations from the complainant itself the complainant recognized the higher charges to be paid in respect of travel nearer to Christmas season. The relevant portion in the complainant para 2 page 2 reads …...whereas the seasonal ticket for Christmas it was Rs.1,424/...... but,........... Thus the complainant himself recognized what is generally collected as seasonal price of ticket near the festival like Christmas. Now the case on hand is the return ticket purchased by the complainant was nearer to a Christmas Festival.
That apart it is specific case of opposite party that facts of the case the complainant purchased the ticket for return journey was not regular route bus, is run because of heavy demand for such special bus forced the opposite party had to run special bus which had to undertake return journey empty.
In fact the learned counsel for opposite party produced copy of notification dated 3.11.2010 issued by the Government of Karnataka wherein in item III (g) the opposite parties are authorized to charge twice the fare indicated in respect of regular fare. The relevant operation III (g):
g) To cater to the increased traffic on any particular day/days or during fairs, jathras, weekends etc., | Not exceeding two times the fares indicated at item no (3) above and rounded off to the next rupee. |
Thus on going through this notification in the portion quoted above opposite party is justified in charging twice of regular fare of the regular journey with special bus as it has to cater to increased almost.
That apart, suffice to mention the ticket for the return journey on 22.12.2012 was purchased by complainant was on his own volition having purchased the ticket at the counter and undertaken the travel he cannot complain that he was forced to pay higher amount for the return journey. The complainant did not dispute other alternative operators were available on the same route. Evidently that was no opted by the complainant. Hence the claim of complainant on this count is liable to be rejected.
In respect of other allegation of complainant as to deficiency in service that the bus was not parked at the bus stand in the prefixed location at Pune and for the alleged delay in departure of the bus and the bus parked on the way between Karad Kolhapur in a hotel for food without basic facilities like drinking water, rest room and un hygienic condition there are no evidence tendered on this count by the complainant. Hence even on this count the claim of complainant is unjustified. Hence we answer point No2 is in negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order:
ORDER
The complaint is rejected.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th November 2016)
MEMBER (SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) D.K. District Consumer Forum Additional Bench Mangalore. | | PRESIDENT (SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D) D.K. District Consumer Forum Additional Bench Mangalore. |
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. P M Tantri
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 09.12.2012 Ticket No.26411574 for Rs.1,946.00 issued by Opposite Party No.1
Ex C2: 09.12.2012 Ticket No.26422774 for Rs.4,048.00 issued by Opposite Party No.1
Ex C3: 25.12.2012 Letter by the complainant addressed to Opposite Party No.1
Ex C4: 25.12.2012 Letter by the complainant addressed to Opposite Party No.2
Ex.C5: 16.01.2013 Reply letter by the opposite Party No.1 to the complainant
Ex.C6: Letter by the complainant to Opposite party No.1
Ex.C7: 23.01.2013 Letter by the complainant to MD KSRTC Bangalore
Ex.C8: 04.03.2013 Reply by the opposite party No.2 to the Complainant in No.8491/2012.13
Ex.C9: 07.03.2013 Letter by the complainant to Opposite Party No.2
Ex.C10: 14.03.2013 Letter by the complainant to opposite Party
Ex.C11: 14.03.2013 Reply by Opposite party No.2 to the Complainant
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Mr. S. Chandrashekar, Divisional Traffic Officer.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: Trip sheet of the bus bound from Pune to Mangaluru
Dated: 14.11.2016 PRESIDENT
