Date of Filling:      12.08.2015

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  28.08.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:    R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.50/2015

Dated this Tuesday the 28^th day of August 2018

Mrs.N.Malarvizhi,

W/o.M.Yuvaraj,

Velur post,

Ponneri Taluk,

Thiruvallur Distrcit -601 203.                                   …..Complainant.

                                             //Vs//

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

   (Villupuram) Limited,

   Rep.by its General Manager,

   Kancheepuram Division,

   Kancheepuram -631 501.

2.The Branch Manager,

    Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

   (Villupuram) Limited,

    Ponneri.

3.Mr.K.Sundararajan,

   TI 1321

   Ticket Inspector,

   Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

   (Villupuram) Limited,

   Ponneri.

4.Mr.K.Jayachandran,

   CI 13744 Ticket Inspector,

   Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

   (Villupuram) Limited,

   Ponneri.

5. Mr.R. Sivakumar,

    Conductor –EMP.No62782,

    Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

    (Villupuram) Limited,

    Ponneri.                                                                   …..Opposite parties.

This Complaint is coming on for final hearing before us on 21.08.2018 in the presence of Mr.R.Gokulraj, counsel for complainant and 5^th opposite party is set Ex-parte for non appearance and the opposite parties 1to4 initially appeared and filed written version and proof affidavit and in subsequent hearing not appeared and failed to file the written argument and therefore the opposite parties 1to 4 are also set Ex-parte. Upon hearing arguments, having perused the documents, evidences, written and oral arguments of the complainant, this Forum delivered the following.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been preferred by the complainant Under Section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction to refund the sum of Rs.75/- towards the balance amount to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and with cost.

2.The brief  facts of the complaint are as follows:-

That on 04.08.2014, the complainant along with others boarded the bus belonging to the respondent corporation Route No.T41 bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0777 at Thiruvellivoyal to travel to Velur.  When the complainant with her accompanies boarded, the bus was crowed and two miscreants who were in an inebriated condition developing arguments with the conductor, by which point of time the complainant gave Rs.100/- to the conductor to issue five tickets to Velur.  When the complainant gave money to the conductor for ticket in the next stopping namely Velu Mettu Street and the drunken people started arguing with the conductor and got down from the bus.

4. That after making the said drunken people get down before the conductor reach the complainant to issue ticket, the checking inspectors boarded the bus and questioned the complainant for not having ticket.  The complainant explained the issue in detail.  However, they were refused to accept the reason and took five rupees ticket from the conductor and kept with them.

5. That it is very unfortunate even after the reason for non - issued of ticket to the complainant was explained by the bus conductor himself, the checking inspectors refused to accept the reason.  The complainant asked the checking inspectors to issue her the balance of Rs.75/-, which was refused by them.  Immediately, the checking inspectors gave her a white paper and asked to write as dictated by them, which was originally refused by the complainant. But complainant was threatened to write a letter as dictated by them by saying that, unless she write a letter the complainant has to face the serious problems.  Therefore, out of fear, the complainant wrote a letter as dictated by them.

6. That in any event, the respondent corporation does not have any authority whatsoever to withhold the complaint’s balance money.  Since it is true that the complainant gave Rs.100/- for ticket, she was not imposed any fine after verification from the conductor.  Therefore, in such event the checking inspectors should have directed the conductor to refund the balance amount of Rs.75/-.  However, very strangely they took ticket worth Rs.75/- from the conductor, which in fact has to be returned to the complainant.  Withholding of balance amount of Rs.75/- of the complainant by the respondent corporation is illegal.  The complainant was also not issued any ticket.  Then complainant and her accompanies also had to get gown at Velur.

7. Then the complainant wrote a letter to the 2^nd respondent on 06.08.2014 narrating the entire incident and requested to refund the balance amount of Rs.75/- , but the 2^nd opposite party never responded.  Therefore, on 17.02.2015, the complainant made a complaint to the 1^st opposite party to take necessary steps to refund the balance amount of Rs.75/- and the 1^st opposite party also remained as mute spectator.  Therefore, the complainant wrote a letter to the Director on 10.06.2015 but all of them ended in vain.  The act of the respondent corporation amounts to poor deficiency and also caused mental harassment.  Hence this complaint is filed.

8.The contention of written version of the opposite parties 1 to 2 is briefly as follows and adopted by op3 to op4:-

The opposite parties denies the averments in the complaint except those that are admitted herein and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. Though it is true that the complainant along with others had boarded the bus Route No.T41/A bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0777 at Thiruvellavoyal to travel to velur but it is not correct to say that she has paid Rs.100/- and for paucity balance of Rs.75/- the tickets were not issued.  If it is true, usually tickets would be given with endorsement of balance of Rs.75/- on the back.  In this case, the complainant has given a letter stating that she was not given a ticket as there was huge crowd and altercation due to inebriated condition of two passengers.  It is the duty of every passenger to get the ticket.  The complainant did not produce the ticket at all till her alighting from the bus.  Instead the letter given to the checking staff by the complainant would say that the conductor has not given the tickets and the conductor also admitted his folly.

9. Therefore, the allegations of Rs.75/- towards balance do not arise and the complainant is to prove the same strictly.  There is no question of threat or compulsion by the checking staff and out of fear she wrote the letter accepting the folly as demanded by the checking staff is not true and cannot be accepted because she is not alone.  She was traveling with four of her relative’s co-passengers.

10. There is no question of return of Rs.75/-.  If it is true, the complainant would have issued notice immediately.  Since there is no such harm or harassment has happened and the cause of action alleged is untrue and the mental agony does not arise because a duty is cast up on the passengers to obtain tickets whenever they board a bus.  None of the co-passengers or allies have given any supporting letter or a similar complaint. The complaint may, therefore be dismissed.

11. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked.  While so, on the side of the opposite parties document not filed.

12.At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

13. Written arguments filed and oral arguments adduced on the side of the complainant only.

Point No:1:-

14. As per the averments of the complaint, when the complainant along with relatives travelling in the alleged bus bearing Registration No.TN/021/N/0777 to pay sum of Rs.100/- for purchase of tickets to the Conductor who is 5^th opposite party herein and thereby the balance of Rs.75/- has not been returned to the complainant after checking made by opposite party 3and 4 who were Ticket Inspectors of the corporation belonging to the opposite party 1and 2 and thereby the opposite parties 1to 5 committed deficiency of service and caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.

15. While so, on the side of the opposite parties 1to 4 vehemently denied in their written version that it is not correct to say that the complainant has paid Rs.100/- and in fact, she had paid Rs.25/- only to the Conductor and at the time of checking the complainant was not holding any tickets for their travel and therefore there is no question to return of Rs.75/- and the same proved by means of letter given dated on 04.08.2014 by the complainant and therefore cause of action alleged is untrue and hence there is no deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.

16. At this juncture though the opposite parties 1to 5 remained Ex-parte, the opposite parties 1to 4 have file the Proof Affidavit on their side.

17. It goes without saying that it is vital duty of the complainant to prove the allegations averred in the complaint by means of acceptable and reliable evidence. At this point of time this Forum has to decide as to whether the complainant has come forward with consistent and reliable evidences to prove the allegations made in the complaint.  First of all, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant by means of proof Affidavit, it is learnt that when the complainant and four relatives were boarded in the alleged bus belongs to the opposite parties 1 and 2 corporation bearing the Registration No.TN/021/N/0777, Route No.T41 two miscreants who were in an inebriated condition developing arguments with the conductor, at that time the complainant gave Rs.100/- to the conductor for issue of five tickets to Velur.  Further, it is seen that the complainant was pregnant she had to sit in the seat behind the driver seat and wait for the conductor to issue the tickets and within time the bus arrived in the next stopping namely Velu Mettu Street and at that stop the drunken people started arguing with the conductor in the bus.  Further, it is learnt that before issue of tickets to the complainant, the checking inspectors 3to 4 boarded the bus and questioned the complained for not having ticket and in turn the complainant explained the entire facts in detail.  However, they were refused to accept the reason and took five rupees ticket from the conductor and kept with them.  The actual amount of the complainant and her relative 5 rupees tickets and the tickets issued for the excess amount are marked as Ex.A5(s) which were obtained by the complainant through RTI Act.

18. It is further seen from the evidence that when the complainant asked with the opposite parties 3 to 4 and issue her balance amount of Rs.75/- and the same was refused by them and immediately the checking inspectors have obtained a letter in writing (Ex.A4) that unless she write a letter she have to face serious problems and therefore she had gave the Ex.A4 letter only by as harassment of the checking inspectors caused much mental agony to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant wrote a letter to the 2^nd opposite party on 06.208.2014 and thereafter the complaint made to the 1^st opposite party on 17.02.2015 and the complaint made to the 2^nd opposite party.  But all of them ended in vain and the same are marked as Ex.A1to Ex.A3 respectively and the receipt furnished by the opposite party to the RTI application is marked as Ex.A6 and charge memo issued to the conductor is marked as Ex.A7 and discharge summery of the complainant is marked as Ex.A8.

19. While so, on going through the evidence of the opposite parties 1 to 4, it is stated that in fact the complainant has not paid Rs.100/- and the balance of Rs 75/- was not given by the 5^th opposite party but the same has not been proved.  It is further narrated that if it is true usually tickets would be given with endorsement of balance Rs.75/- on the back and from the letter given by the complainant to the checking staff would clearly shows that the conductor has not given ticket and she has actually paid Rs.25/- only and therefore the claim of the compensation is baseless.

20. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that the complainant and his accompanies were travelling in the alleged bus belongs to the opposite parties corporation.  Similarly, the 5^th opposite party was working the conductor of the said bus who is working under the control of the opposite parties 1and 2.  It is further learnt that during the travel by the complainant, the opposite party 3and 4 had boarded in the bus as checking inspector for the said bus on behalf of the corporation.  At the outset, the first point to be decided is that as to whether the complainant has given Rs.100/-to the 5^th opposite party for purchase of the Five tickets each for Rs.5/-.  Regarding this point, it is learnt from the evidence of the complainant that the complainant has given Rs.100/- for 5 tickets.  At this point of time, it is categorically admitted by the complainant as well as opposite parties 3 and 4 being the checking inspectors that the conductor has not actually issued tickets to the complainant though he had received the amount when the opposite parties 3and 4 had boarded into the bus for checking. This fact has been admitted by the opposite parties 3 and 4 in their written version.  Further, Exhibit A6 charge memo also reveals the said facts.  Therefore, there is no dispute at all that the 5^th opposite party who being the conductor in the alleged bus has not issued the tickets though he has received the amount from the complainant within the stage as fixed by the transport corporation which was managed by the opposite parties 1and 2.

21. At the outset, the next point to be taken into consideration as to whether the complainant actually given Rs.100/- or Rs.25/-only.  As per the version of the opposite parties 3and 4, that the Exhibit A4 letter given by the complainant herself on the date of traveling, that is on 04.08.2014 it shows that the complainant has given Rs.25/-only.  In such circumstances, on the side of the complainant it is stated that the Exhibit A4 letter was obtained by opposite parties 3and 4 clearly on threatening, not by herself voluntarily.  Moreover in order to substantiate the version of the opposite parties 3 and 4 there is no concrete evidence or proof of documents produced before this Forum.  In such circumstances, the 5^th opposite party is the competent person to say what amount actually given by the complainant to him for purchase of 5 tickets.  But unfortunately the 5^th opposite party remained Ex-parte.  Such being so the recitals from the Exhibit A7 it is clearly seen as below:

xOq;F eltbf;if jpU.R. rptFkhu,; elj;Jdu;, gzp vz;;: 62782 fpis nghd;Ndup - gzpapy; 5x5 AFC kw;Wk; gzg;igapy; &75/- mjpfk; itj;jpUe;jJ Gfhu - jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk; tprhuid epYitapy; itj;jy; Miz gpwg;gpj;jy; njhlu;ghf......

22. Hence from the above recital, it is crystal clear that during inspection by opposite parties 3and 4 in the alleged bus the opposite parties who is the conductor having excess of amount Rs.75/- in his cash bag which clearly established the allegations of the complainant that the opposite parties have refused to refund the balance amount of Rs.75/- out of hundred exclusively the cost of 5 tickets to the tune of Rs.25/-only.

23. Moreover, the  Exhibit A5(s) obtained by means of application sent to the opposite parties under the RTI Act clearly shows that the 5rupees tickets of five number as AFC and the ticket for excess amount Rs.75/-.  While so, regarding this Exhibit A5(s) the opposite parties have not come forward to explain the same though it is a bounden duty of them which clearly reveals the fact that there is a deficiency of service in somewhere else on the part of the opposite parties. Since, the opposite parties 3to 5 are working under the control of the opposite parties 1and2 which clearly show the vicarious liability of the opposite parties 1and 2.

24. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the complainant has sent letters Exhibit A1to Exhibit A3 to the competent Authorities op1and2 for the refund of Rs.75/- only, but they are all kept silent and not even come forward to give any reply to the complainant.  Hence, the allegations are also clearly established the deficiency of service committed by opposite parties 1to 5 which certainly leads to cause mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and thereby the said facts clearly proved by the complainant.  Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No:2:-

25. As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1 it is clear that the balance of Rs.75/- has not been refunded to the complainant in spite of repeated demand and thereby caused mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.75/- along with the interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum with reasonable compensation and cost towards litigation expenses.  Thus the point no.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the opposite parties1to5 jointly and severally  are directed  to  refund the sum of Rs.75/-(Rupees Seventy Five only) along with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of this complaint i.e. (12.08.2015) till the date of this order (28.08.2018) and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1to5 and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards cost for litigation expenses to the complainant.

            The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of the order, failing which, this said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in open Forum of this 28^th day August 2018.

         -Sd-                                                                                                -Sd-

     MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite parties1to5:-

-Nil-

      -Sd-                                                                                -Sd-

   MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT.