IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER
F.A. No. 03 of 2021
(Against the Order passed in C.C. No.01 of 2015 dated 08.08.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Villupuram)
Dated the 28th day of April 2023
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Govt. Transport Corp. Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Division,
Tiruchirapalli. .. Appellant / Opposite party.
- Vs –
1. A. Natatrajan (Deceased),
S/o. Amirathalingham,
2. Tmt. Kalavathi,
W/o. (Late) A. Natarajan,
3. Aravind,
S/o. (Late) A. Natarajan,
4. Prasanth,
S/o. (Late) A. Natarajan,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are residing at:
Door No.49, Devara Street,
Keezh Perumbakkam,
Villupuram. .. Respondents 2 to 4/ Complainants 2 to 4.
2 to 4 are impleaded as respondents by
Order dt. 23.08.2022 in CMP No.38/2022
Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party : M/s. R. Annamalai
Respondents 2 to 4/ Complainants 2 to 4 : Served called absent
The 1st Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 08.08.2019 in C.C. No.01/2015.
This petition came before us for hearing finally, today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he along with his wife had travelled from Tiruchirappali to Villupuram in the Opposite party Corporation bus on 13.11.2013 at 02.00 p.m. and obtained tickets for them for Rs.190/-. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.500/- to the conductor. The conductor instead of giving the balance amount to the complainant, made a note on the back side of the ticket and gave it to the complainant. When the said bus arrived at Villupuram at about 05.15 p.m., the complainant asked for the balance amount. But the conductor asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.190/- and get back Rs.500/- from him. Finally, the complainant got the change from one of the shops in Villupuram Bus stand and returned to the bus but the bus had left the place. Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice on 04.01.2014 to the opposite party but the opposite party has not sent any reply and not come forward to comply with the demands of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for the refund of Rs.310/- and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. The opposite party has filed written version but failed to file proof affidavit and hence, the appellant/ opposite party was set exparte before the District Commission. Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.310/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, along with a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, to the complainant. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.
4. Before this commission, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of him and that they have got valid defense and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint. The complaint mentioned vehicle is not operated in the Trichi-Chennai route and the respondent cannot be termed as a consumer as per the provision elucidated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order dt. 08.08.2019 of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
5. When the case had come up before this Commission on 06.04.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite party to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit. However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party, in non-filing of proof affidavit before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 27.04.2023. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with. Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Villupuram, in C.C. No.01/2015 dt.08.08.2019, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Villupuram for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.
The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Villupuram on 01.06.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite party shall file their proof affidavit and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law and on merits.
The amount deposited by the appellant, shall remain in the custody of this Commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Index : Yes/ No
KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2023
