3

it she suffered physical stain on 17-1-2009 as they were forced to stay at Kadapa bus

stand for whole night. Hence, the complaint.

4. The counter filed by R1 and the same was adopted by R2. The

respondents stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of

the case. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not

expressly admitted herein. It is true that the complainant has reserved seat from

ATB agent APSRTC Old bus stand, Kadapa in bus service No. 5651 operating on

route Chittoor – Hyderabad at 22-25 hours to make her journey on 17-1-2009 from

Kadapa to Hyderabad boarding at Kadapa by paying Rs. 244/-. The respondents

further stated that due to software problem the seat was reserved at Kadapa even

through the same seat was booked at Chittoor Depot. The ATB agent of the said

service counter was unable to find that the same ticket was reserved at Chittoor

depot. After getting the information from on line agents about the problem, the

Kadapa Depot authorities have made alternative arrangements duly providing a bus

at the same time 22-25 hours Hyderabad service and requested the complainant to

board the said bus to make her journey from Kadapa to Hyderabad without causing

inconvenience. The respondents further stated that they have made alternative

arrangement by providing a bus on the same time from Kadapa to Hyderabad. The

complainant has not boarded the bus for the reasons best know to her. So there is

no any deficiency of service caused to the complainant by APSRTC authorities. There

are no bonafides in the complaint except to harass the APSRTC authorities to gain

the amount. The complaint was filed with false allegations in view of the above said

fact, there is no deficiency of service caused to the complainant and cause of action

does not arise. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum has to dismiss the present complaint in

limini.

5. The R3 was called absent and set exparte.

6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked.

4

7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the amount which

was paid towards bus fare along with costs and compensation

from the respondents?

ii. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the

part of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

8. Point Nos. 1 & 2 Heard both sides and perused the records available

with the forum and forum made the following order. The complainant and her

friend both were studying in Narayana Junior College, Hyderabad. The complainant

studying 2

EAMCET coaching (medicine). Both the girls want to go to Hyderabad after

completion of Sankranti holidays. The complainant’s father booked tickets to the

complainant and her friend from R3, who is the authorized agent for R1 & R2. Ex.

A1 is the ticket which was booked by the complainant’s father. They booked the

tickets on 10-1-2009. On the date of journey i.e. 17-1-2009 at 8.00 p.m. The

complainant and her friend Divya were accompanied by the father of the complainant

and at Rayachoty bus stand and they boarded the same service 5651 and they took

general ticket from Rayachoty to Kadapa. Ex. A2 is the general ticket which was

taken by them. After reaching Kadapa the father of complainant requested the driver

to provide seat Nos. 3 & 4 to the complainant and her friend. But the driver of the

said bus recklessly answered that the seats were already reserved at R2’s depot. The

complainant and her friend along with her father met with the R1 and requested

them to make any alternative arrangement, but the respondents failed to do so. It is

a peak season i.e. after Sankranti heavy rush in all the buses they could not get any

seat in any bus. The R1 informed that in case of cancellation of tickets 20% of the

ticket value will be refunded. The complainant stated that in helpless condition, she

and her friend along with her father were forced to stay in Kadapa as it is mid night

5

and they could not return to Rayachoty due to non availability of bus service in the

mid night. The complainant and her friend went to Hyderabad after lapse of four

days due to non availability of reservation. The complainant is studying intermediate

and her friend is taking coaching for medicine each day is valuable for them. Due to

negligence act of the respondents, they lost valuable classes for three days. Not

only that she and her friend were forced to stay at Kadapa bus stand, due to non

availability of any reservation in any bus, after returning home the complainant’s

father issued a legal notice to all the respondents calling upon them to take suitable

action against their employees, who are responsible for loss caused to her. The R1 &

R2 gave formal reply and R3 returned the postal cover with false endorsement. Ex.

A3 is the legal notice issued by complainant’s father. Ex. A4 is the reply notice

issued by R2. Ex. A5 is the reply notice issued by R1. Ex. A6 is the returned postal

cover issued to R3 and Ex. A7 is the Xerox copy of tuition fee, which was paid by the

complainant.

9. The respondents in their counter stated that the complainant has

reserved the seat from ATB agent APSRTC old bus stand Kadapa in the bus No. 5651

operating on route Chittoor – Hyderabad to make journey on 17-1-2009 from Kadapa

to Hydeabad by paying ticket Rs. 244/-. Due to software problem the allotment of

the seat was not reached to the service station and the same seats were booked in

chittoor. After getting information from online agents the Kadapa depot authorities

have made arrangements by providing another bus at the same time from Kadapa to

Hyderabad and requested the complainant and her friend to board the bus but they

refused to board the bus, the reasons best known them. The respondents stated that

they have made alternative arrangements and there is no deficiency of service caused

to the complainant by APSRTC authorities. The RTC counsel stated that they made

announcement in mike that they made alternative arrangement and passengers are

requested to board the bus. But the complainant and her friend did not boarded, so

6

there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Even now they are

ready to refund ticket amount which was not traveled by the complainant and her

friend. It is true that the complainant and her friend booked tickets to travel from

Kadapa to Hyderabad after completion of Sankantri holidays on 10-1-2009 itself they

have reserved their seats. Their journey date is 17-1-2009. It means they have

booked their tickets 7 days prior to the journey from Kadapa – Hydeabad. As stated

by the respondents that due to software problem the seats were allotted in Chittoor

depot only and the same was not brought to the notice of the agent and after getting

information they made alternative arrangement by providing a bus. It is not

mentioned that how many passengers were detained like the complainant and her

friend simply they have stated that they made alternative by providing another bus.

What was the bus No. that they have provided, there is no proof for the same how

many passengers were detained and how many passengers traveled in the alternative

service provided by the respondents. There is no data from the respondents. Simply

stating that they have provided another bus. If at all really they have provided any

alternative service at the same time. The complainant and her friend could have

definitely availed the provision which was made by the respondents as they are

students and it is necessary for them to go to college immediately after completion of

holidays. In the mid night does anybody wants to stay in the bus stand without

going to their destination, The RTC authorities have simply stated that they have

made alternative services. No details of the said arrangements. The agent of

APSRTC i.e. R3 is sole labial to pay compensation in the present C.C. He has not

even received the notice which was issued by the Hon’ble Forum and returned the

same with false endorsement. He is guilty to attend before the Hon’ble Forum, he is

called absent and set exparte. The APSRTC authorities must warn the agents like

R3, t o have smooth running of their buses. We are of the opinion that the

respondents have caused much inconvenience to the complainant and her friend and

they are liable to pay costs and compensation to the complainant. We feel there is

7

deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the points are answered

accordingly.

10. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the

respondents to refund ticket amount of Rs. 244/- (Rupees Two hundred and Forty

four only), to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards damages for loss

of general classes in the college, to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only)

towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only)

towards costs of the complaint. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to

pay the above amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing

which the complainant is entitled interest @ 9% p.a. of the total amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 6

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 Original Bus ticket No. 43517, dt. 10-1-2009.

Ex. A2 Ticket from Rayachoty – Kadapa.

Ex. A3 Copy of legal notice from R. Siva Mohan to respondents, 27-1-2009.

Ex. A4 Letter from R2 to Siva Mohan, dt. 21-9-2009.

Ex. A5 Copy of letter from R1 to Siva Mohan.

Ex. A6 Postal cover and acknowledgement card.

Ex. A7 X/c of fee receipt certificate, dt. 14-10-2008.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: - ----NIL-----

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate,

2) Sri V. Srinivas, Advocate.

3) P. Khader Khan, Authorised Agent, Masha Allah, APSRTC,

Online booking centre, Opp. To NGO’s Home, Near

Old Bus stand, Kadapa.

1) Copy was made ready on :

2) Copy was dispatched on :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.P. - - -