BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st March 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.90/2016
(Admitted on 11.3.2016)
Sundara Rai,
S/o Sankappa Rai,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at. Church Building,
2nd floor, court Road,
Puttur Taluk, D.K.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SD)
VERSUS
- The Divisional controller, KSRTC , Puttur Division, Alms Building , Bolwar, Puttur, D.K.
- The Depot Manager, KSRTC Puttur Depot, Mukrampadi, Puttur, D.K.
- Mr. Shesappa Gowada, Conductor KSRTC, Puttur Depot, Mukrampadi, Puttur D.K. …. Opposite Parties
(Advocate for Opposite Party by Sri.MR)
(Opposite Party No.2 and 3. Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant has travelled from Harihara to Puttur on 18.10.2014 in KSRTC bus. Since the complainant had no change gave Rs.1,000/ note to the conductor towards the bus fair . The bus fair from Harihara to Puttur was Rs.45/ and the conductor issued a ticket and change of Rs.205/ and promised to give the remaining change of Rs.750/ at Puttur. The conductor made an entry in the back side of the ticket issued. When the complainant got down at Puttur forgot to demand the remaining balance and went to Mangalore in a hurry. The complainant could not approach the Opposite Parties for 3 days for refund of the amount due to the busy schedule. The complainant has approached the 2nd Opposite Party on 23.10.2014 and he has given a written application for the refund of the balance amount, the 2nd Opposite Party has given an endorsement for receiving the application. The complainant also approached the 3rd Opposite Party and requested to refund the balance amount. But the 3rd Opposite Party told that he had handed over the balance amount to the 2nd Opposite Party. That the 2nd Opposite Party gave reply dated 4.11.2014 stating that the complainant could get the balance amount from the 3rd Opposite Party. Hence the complainant got issued regd lawyer’s notice dated 20.12.2014 to the Opposite Parties and the 1st Opposite Party has issued false reply dated. 3.1.2015. Hence the above complaint filed by the complainant before this forum under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986(here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Fora to the Opposite Parties to refund the balance amount of Rs.750/ with 12% interest from 18.1.2014 till payment, to pay Rs.30,000/ as compensation, to pay Rs.10,000/ as expenses such other reliefs.
II. Version Notice served to the opposite parties by RPAD, inspite of receiving notice the Opposite Party No.1 neither appeared nor contested the case. Hence we have proceeded Ex parte as against Opposite Parties. Version of Opposite Parties not filed hence treated nil.
III. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr. Sundar Rai, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and documents produced got marked Ex.C1 to C7. Since the Opposite Party not filed version nor led any evidence
IV. In view of the above said facts, the points for arise for our consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the arguments submitted by the complainant and Opposite Party and also considered the materials that was placed before the Fora and answered the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
V. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):
In order to substantiate the case of the complainant produced the Ex.C1 to C7. It is the case of the complainant that on 18.10.2014 the complainant has travelled Opposite Party No.1 bus KSRTC from Harihara to Puttur. Due to no change complainant gave Rs.1,000/ note to the Opposite Party No.3 who was the conductor of the said bus. The bus fair Rs.45/ and Rs.205/ gave change at the time of issuing the ticket the Opposite Party No.3 promised to pay remaining amount of Rs.750/ The conductor made an entry in the back side of the ticket as per Ex.C1 but complainant forgot to demand the remaining balance. Due to complainants busy schedule he approached the 2nd Opposite Party on 23.10.2014 and given written application for the refund of money as per Ex.C2. But Opposite Party No.3 stating that the balance amount was handed over to the Opposite Party No.2. After perusal of Ex.C3 it is clearly mentioned that when ticket checking was done on excess amount of Rs.750/ was found with the Opposite Party No.3 and balance amount should be collected from the Opposite Party No.3.
Apart from the above, in this case Opposite Party No.2 and 3 not appeared nor contested the case hence placed exparte and Opposite Party No.1 filed version after stipulated time. Considering the reported judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court 2016 (1) this fora rejected the version of Opposite Party No.1 hence version treated nil. After the issuance of legal notice Ex.C4 the Karnataka State Road transport corporation i.e Opposite Party No.1 replied for the notice as per Ex.C5.
Now the point for our consideration is that as per Ex.C1 the complainant travelled Opposite Party bus and as per Ex.C3 the Opposite Party No.1 admitted that, ಸದರಿ ದಿನ ನಿಗಮದ ಮಾಗ ತನಿಖಾದಳದ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳು ತನಿಕೆ ನಡೆಸಿದ್ದು, ನಿವಾಹಕರ ಬಳಿ ರೂ. 750/ ನಿಗಮದ ಸಾರಿಗೆ ಆದಾಯಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವರಿ ಇದ್ದುದ್ದನ್ನು ಪತ್ತೆ ಹಚ್ಚಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. It is the clear admission of Opposite Party No.1 that access amount of Rs.750/ was found with the 3rd Opposite Party . the Ex.C5 contended that the Opposite Party No.3 was suspended for possessing an excess cash of Rs.750/ hence on this reason Opposite Parties cannot escape from their liability. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 argued that the complainant lodged complainant after many days. It is not a criteria that the complaint lodged after many days from the incident and he has given proper reason in that effect. Since the Opposite Party No.3 was the employee of the Opposite Party No.1 bus so that the Opposite Party No.1 is also equally liable for deficiency in service committed by Opposite Party No.3. On the perusal of the documents there is no role of Opposite Party No.2 in the above case except receiving complaint as per Ex.C2 from the complainant Opposite Party No.2 not committed deficiency of service in his part.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opnion that the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.750/ to the complainant with 9% interest from 18.10.2014 when the complainant travelled from Harihara to Puttur and Rs.5,000/ as compensation further pay Rs.1,000/ as cost of the litigation expenses is justified hence the answer No.1 to 2 is affirmative.
In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.750/ with 9% interest from 18.10.2014 and Rs.5,000/ as compensation further pay Rs.1,000/ as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Case against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by Member to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st March 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Sundar Rai,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 18.10.2014: Original Ticket issued by the Opposite Parties.
Ex.C2: 22.10.2014: O/c the letter issued to the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.C3: 4.11.2014: Reply issued by the 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.C4: 20.12.2014: O/c of regd. Lawyers notice.
Ex.C5: 3.1.2015: Reply of the 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.C6: 22.12.2014: Postal Acknowledgement of 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.C7: 26.12.2014: Postal acknowledgement of 3rd Opposite Party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 31.03.2017 MEMBER