Kerala

Kannur

CC/09/224

Baburaj.V., Mecheri Edathil, Kayaralam.P.O.,Mayyil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abdul Jabbar, V.P.House, Kuttiattoor.P.O.Mayyil - Opp.Party(s)

14 Oct 2009

ORDER


In The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Kannur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/224

Baburaj.V., Mecheri Edathil, Kayaralam.P.O.,Mayyil
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Abdul Jabbar, V.P.House, Kuttiattoor.P.O.Mayyil
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

 

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

 

                                                  Dated this,14th the    day of October 2009

 

CC.224/2009

V.Babu Raj

S/o.Krishnan,

Mecheri Edathil,

P.O.Kayaralam, Mayyil.                                   Complainant

 

Abdul Jabbad,

S/o/Abdulla,

V.P.House,

P.O.Kuttiattoor,                                               Opposite party

Mayyil.

 

O R D E R

 

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation ofRs.25, 000/- including the ticket charge.

            The case of the complainant is that he is a blind person having the identity card for traveling in the private bus without paying for ticket and the opposite party is the owner of private bus bearing NO.KL.59/3499 which was servicing through Kannur-Kasaragod route. On 19.8.09 the complainant has enquired to the conductor of the above bus, that whether the above bus will go to Kannur?

 But the conductor answered negatively. Later he understood that it is servicing through Kasaragod-Kannur  route and hence he was boarded to the above bus to Kannur with the help of some other passengers But the conductor represented to him that he will allow only for 40 km for free traveling and given ticket for Rs.19/- for the rest of the journey . But the complainant hold an identity card issued by RTO, Taliparamba for traveling in any private bus irrespective of the distance. Because of this the complainant has suffered so much of mental, physical agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint.

 On receiving the complaint, the notice was sent to the opposite party. Even though intimation was given to opposite party he refused the notice and hence he was called absent and set exparte.

            The points to be decided in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party and the complainant  is entitled to any relief?

            The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2.

            The complainant is a blind person due to some nerve problems and because of this the Taliparamba RTO has issued an identity card for traveling by private bus without ticket irrespective of distance. The complainant has produced the ticket and the identity card. The exhibits prove the case of the complainant. Now a day it is the usual practice of the conductors to interview the passengers before boarding to the bus. Moreover, Ext.A2 clearly shows that the complainant can travel by any private bus irrespective of the distance without giving charge. Ext.A2 was issued by RTO, Taliparamba. So as an owner of the bus the opposite party is bound to appoint staff who are law abiding and answerable to the pu8blic. So by appointing such an irresponsible conductor, the opposite party has shown some deficiency and hence he is answerable to the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the behavior of such conductors are to be questioned and they are bound to show some  decent and lenient behavior towards the public especially a blind  man like the complainant who deserves kind attention of the society including the opposite party. So opposite party is liable to refund Rs.19/- the amount received from the complainant with Rs.500/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings and passed orders accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.19/-(Rupees Nineteen only) along with Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection act.

                                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                       Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the ticket issued by OP

A2.Copy of the identity card

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

                                                /forwarded by order/

                                                Senior Superintendent

 

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur

 

 




......................GOPALAN.K
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P