By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act 1986.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows: The Complainant was a passenger in Kozhikode Bangalore KSRTC Super Fast Bus No.KL 15/6957 on 06.10.2008 at about 9 PM. The Complainant was aboarded in a seat and traveled up to Kalpetta starting from Calicut when the bus reached at Kalpetta the conductor asked the passenger Complainant to get up from the seat and it was at about 12 night. The Complainant was insulted and threatened and finding no other source the complainant was forced to get up from the seat. The act of the conductor is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- towards the hardships and mental pain for the unwarranted act along with cost and compensation.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version is short it in as follows:- The allegation of the Complainant that the Complainant was a passenger traveling from Calicut to Sulthan Bathery and the Complainant was asked to get up from the seat to give the seat for a lady passenger at Kalpetta are false. There was no insult or intimidation from the side of the 1^st Opposite Party and no unfair trade practice or deficiency can be attributed against the 1^st Opposite Party. As a conductor in duty the 1^st Opposite Party acted that all are bound by the duty. The allegation of the Complainant that in the Super Fast KSRTC Bus there is no permit to the passengers to stand is incorrect. The Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation hence to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Parties.

4. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties also filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1, B1 to B4 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Parties are also considered in this case.

6. Admittedly the Complainant was a passenger in KSRTC Super Fast Bus starting from Calicut to Bangalore. The matter that to be decided is whether the Complainants right as a passenger is insulted or not in the event of denying the seat were he occupied. The main plea of the complaint is in tune of that the Complainant was asked to get up from the seat. The Complainant raised an another contention that he was denied the seat due to the excess occupancy of passengers in the bus than the alloted capacity. In Super Fast Bus there is no provision for the conductor to admit the Passengers more than the alloted seating capacity. The Complainant raised the point to the conductor that there is no standing passenger permit in KSRTC Super Fast Bus. Ext.B2 is the copy of the memorandum issued by the Managing Director Transport Bhavan to the concerned KSRTC Officials. The tax payment even for standing passengers are directed in this memorandum 25% of the seating capacity are allowed for standing passengers. The Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 267(2) reads standing capacity :- The State or Regional Transport Authority may, in respect of any public service vehicle other than a motor cab, fix the number of standing passengers the vehicle may be permitted to carry or the permit holder may be required to carry in the vehicle. The inserted of the proviso of 267 reads that no standing passenger shall be allowed in Luxury Services, Super Deluxe Services, Super Express Services or Super Fast Services. It is not brought in to notice whether subsequent amendment which enable the Opposite Party to permit standing passengers in Super Fast service. In the oral testimony of the Complainant it is admitted that the Complainant was asked to get up from the occupying seat when the bus reached at Kalpetta. There was no hindrance or objection to the Complainant in the aboarding of the seat in course of his journey until he reach Kalpetta. The Complainant had to get up from the seat from Kalpetta alone it is disposed by the Complainant that when he got up from the seat and looked up he could see the writing “ kv{XoIÄ “ it is to be considered that the Complainant occupied in the seat which was alloted to the ladies. In the oral testimony of the Opposite Party, it is also brought out that seats are reserved for ladies priority and ladies only. The Complainant has no case that he was deliberately asked to get up from the seat by the 1^st Opposite Party which was unreserved. Apart from the oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party no fellow passengers were examined as witness in this case. The Complainant has not case that he was got up from the unreserved seat and Mail passengers seat occupying in the seat alloted for ladies is against the norms and directions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the points are found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th March 2011.

Date of filing:18.10.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Jose V. Thannikode Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. A.K. Babu. Conductor.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1 series (3 in numbers) Bus Ticket.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Memorandum. dt:04.09.2010.

B2. Copy of Memorandum dt:21.03.2002.

B3 series (2 in number) Copy of Memorandum.

B4. Copy of Memorandum. dt:4.3.97.