Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/142/2019

The Managing Director/ Special Officer, - Complainant(s)

Versus

A. Abdul Ajeez, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. T. Natarajan

23 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru. S.KARUPPIAH        ... JUDICIAL MEMBER

              Thiru. R.VENKATESAPERUMAL      … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.142 of 2019

 

(Against the Order, dated 25.02.2019, in C.C.No.407/10,

on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai-South)

                                        

                                  Orders pronounced on:  23.03.2022

            

The Managing Director/Special Officer,

State Express Transport Corporation T.N. Ltd.,

Pallavan Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                                                                                                   … Appellant / Opp. Party

 

vs.

 

A.Abdul Ajeez,

S/o.Mr.Abdul Majeed,

No.114, 4^th Cross Street,

Sabari Nagar,

Porur, Chennai 600 116.                                                                                                    … Respondent / Complainant

 

             Counsel for Appellant    : M/s.T.Natarajan

 

             Counsel for Respondent : M/s.E.Maragatha Sundari

 

          This Appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 23.03.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J - President.  – OPEN COURT.

             Aggrieved by the Order, dated 25.02.2019, passed in C.C. No.407 of 2010 by the DCDRF, Chennai-South, in partly allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, the Opposite Party/State Express Transport Corporation (in short SETC) has come up with the present first appeal.  

 

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in the course of this order as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             The case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in brief, is as follows:-

             On 18.05.2010 at 19.22 Hours, the complainant had booked/reserved 9 tickets against seat Nos.36 to 44 in the Bus (Route No.335/Trip Code-2000 CHEVER) bearing Registration No.TN-01 N-8871, belonging to the OP/SETC, for the journey from Chennai CMBT to Vedaranyam on 21.05.2010.  On the date of journey, while boarding the bus, the complainant and his family members were unable to occupy the seats since the seats available in the bus were restricted to 40.   When he questioned about the same with the Conductor and the Driver, they humiliated the complainant by behaving rudely and they were made to travel all along by standing, despite booking the tickets 2 days in advance after paying necessary charges.   As a result, the complainant, who is a senior citizen and chronic diabetic with blood pressure, not only suffered physical and mental agony but also forced to undergo extra medical care for the pain in joints.  Thus, by alleging deficiency in service, he filed the complaint, seeking the District Forum to direct the OP to refund the ticket value, to reimburse Rs.1,500/- spent towards medical expenses and to order compensation of Rs.2 lakh for the mental sufferings and hardships suffered by him and his family members during the travel.  

 

             3. The OP resisted the complaint by filing a written version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:-

             Bus Route No.335 had only 40 seats, as the other Bus that was originally scheduled to depart at 20.00 hours from Chennai to Vedaranyam was not available due to some technical reasons.  Hence, the time-keeper informed the Conductor of the Vehicle bearing No.335 to accommodate the passengers in his bus.  Accordingly, passengers concerned occupied the seats and when the conductor informed the complainant that there was no seat available for him, he informed that somehow, he had to travel in the said bus to reach Vedaranyam.  As per his insistence, he was allowed to travel in the Bus and, in fact, he was made to adjust and sit with another co-passenger in the bus.  While so, without raising any voice of discontent throughout the travel, he chose to file the complaint for the reasons best known to him.  The allegation that the Conductor and the Driver humiliated the complainant by exhibiting rude behavior is totally false.  Having himself agreed to travel in the alternate bus, the complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service; hence, the complaint may have to be dismissed.

                    

             4. To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits before the District Forum and, on the side of the complainant, 9 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A9, while the Opposite Party marked 4 documents as Exs.B1 to B4.  The District Forum, by the impugned order, allowed the complaint in part by directing the OP to refund the ticket-value for a sum of Rs.405/-, to pay Rs.798/- that was spent towards medical expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, the present Appeal by the SETC.

 

             5. Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

 

             6. It is the case of the complainant that, while he had booked the tickets with the OP/Corporation 2 days well in advance for himself and 8 of his family members, on the date of journey, they were not given the seats as per the booking and he was made to travel by standing for about 350 Kms. all the way from Chennai to Vedaranyam. Due to such deficiency in service on the part of the OP/SETC, he suffered physical strain and mental agony coupled with joint pain that compelled him to subsequently undergo extra medical care. On the contrary, it is the stand of the OP that, on the date of travel, due to the technical fault in the bus that was actually scheduled to ply on the route, another bus with lesser seat capacity was arranged; while so, having travelled in the said alternate bus without raising any protest, now the complainant has no locus standi to maintain the complaint by attributing any deficiency of service against the OP that too by making a false allegation that he was answered rudely by the Driver and Conductor of the Bus.  But, we are not inclined to endorse the case of the OP.  The reason is, admittedly, the complainant had booked the tickets 2 days well in advance and, as such, on the date of journey, he would expect a comfortable trip by occupying the respective seats allotted to him.  Logic and prudence would  not  allow  one  to  accept   the   stand of the OP   that, just by permitting the complainant and his family members to travel in the alternate bus either by standing throughout or by somehow adjusting/sharing the seats with co-passengers, they ensured the journey in a convenient manner, therefore, they cannot be questioned about deficiency in service.  As a service-provider, the OP should have arranged the alternate bus in such a way to seat all such persons like the complainant, who booked the tickets well in advance, and then only proceeded to issue any usual ticket to other regular passengers.  It is not the case of the OP that they took any such service-oriented step or that they advised the complainant to get refund of the ticket amount owing to the unexpected technical exigency.  By not doing so, undoubtedly, the OP has committed deficiency in service and, as such, their explanation does not merit acceptance at all. Certainly, a person like the complainant, by undertaking a long journey of about 350 KMs by standing throughout or by congested sharing of seat, would have suffered physical strain and mental agony and consequently, suffered related ailments, since he is said to be an aged diabetic.   In that regard, although the District Forum held in a right perspective, we are of the view that award of compensation for a sum of Rs.30,000/- seems to be on the higher side, which alone, if modified into Rs.10,000/-, would meet the ends of justice.

 

             7. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed in part, except to the extent of modifying the compensation of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the District Forum into Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).  In all other aspects, the order of the District Forum shall stand as such.   No costs.

 

R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                                                S.KARUPPIAH                                               R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                              JUDL.MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT.

 

 

Index    :  Yes  / No.

ISM/SCDRC/Chennai/MARCH/2022.