O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainants filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties besides mental agony and physical strain suffered by them; Rs.50,000/- towards unnecessary expenditure incurred by them; Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:
The complainants are related to each other being members of Hindu undivided family. The complainants 1 and 6 booked tickets online for their journey on 08-12-12 from Guntur to Srisailam in super luxury bus of the opposite parties vide ticket Nos.16619836 and 16619902. Service code of the bus for the above journey was 95303/VJA/SSLM. The complainants have to board the said service bus at about 10.50 pm on 08-12-12 at Guntur. All the complainants reached RTC bus station at Guntur by 9.00 pm itself on 08-12-12 and waited for the said service. The 1st complainant along with some other passengers enquired at the enquiry counter. The concerned person at the enquiry counter informed that they were not aware of the exact time of arrival of the said bus at Guntur. One of the passengers obtained telephone number of the driver of the said bus through the 2nd opposite party and contacted driver of the said service bus. Driver of the said service bus informed that the bus had already left Narasaraopet town and the said bus did not touch Guntur RTC bus station as filled up with passengers and as per the directions of the authorities of the 2nd opposite party. The complainants brought the same to the notice of the 2nd opposite party who in turn asked them to contact the controller of Guntur RTC bus depot and gave their phone number. All this happened between 11.00 pm of 08-12-12 and 2.15 am 09-12-12. The complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience at that odd hour in RTC bus station at Guntur. At 4.20 am on 09-12-12 the 1st opposite party arranged a bus stated to be deluxe for their travel to Srisailam and in the said bus the seats were almost in dilapidated condition. For want of other alternative the complainants with great difficulty and physical strain traveled and reached the destination at about 2.00pm on 09-12-12. The complainants have suffered a lot and travel for their return journey was spoiled for which they spent huge expenditure at Srisailam. The opposite parties are responsible for their negligent and deficient service. The complainants claimed Rs.3,50,000/- @Rs.50,000/- each for each complainant. The complainants also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards unnecessary expenditure incurred by them for the fault of the opposite parties. The complaint therefore be allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The contention of the opposite parties in brief is thus:
The complaint is barred by limitation. One has to go through the conditions carefully before booking tickets through online. In the event of cancellation of bus/service trip APSRTC will assist the passengers in providing an alternative similar service subject to availability. In case of non availability of alternative service the APSRTC shall be liable to the extent of refund of the sum paid by the passengers as per rules in force directly to the customers credit card/debit card account. As the opposite parties provided alternative service and took them to destination station safely they did not commit any deficiency of service. The special service was kept with withdrawal date of 08-12-2012 and all the seats were reserved with the same mode. At Guntur stage “same day/next day” option was given previously whenever Vijayawada-Srisailam was operated as special service. In the instant case, the option might be skipped while moving the mouse resulting this lapse happened. There was no fault or deficiency of service on the part of the driver or the management of APSRTC, only due to the system’s mechanical fault it was happened. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainants themselves opted for their journey at odd hours and as such there is question of causing any inconvenience by the opposite parties. The complainants did not file any proof of their return journey and other pilgrim places. The complainants are not entitled to any relief as the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service. The complaint therefore be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Exs.A-1 and A-2 on behalf of complainants and Ex. B-1 on behalf of the opposite parties were marked.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are these:
1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?
2. Whether this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
4. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
5. To what relief?
6. POINT No.1:- The complainants booked their tickets for their journey on 08-12-12. The complaint was filed on 08-02-13. Therefore the complaint is well in time as envisaged under section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence we answer this point in favour of the complainants.
7. POINT No.2:- The complainants are residents of Visakhapatnam district and they booked tickets through online in the service operated by the opposite parties. The complainants have to board the bus for their journey to Srisailam at Guntur. The bus though originated at Vijayawada has to pass through Guntur to reach Srisailam. The complaint averments revealed that the opposite parties arranged deluxe bus at Guntur for complainants and other passengers. We therefore opine that a part of cause of action arose at Guntur and as such this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We therefore answer this point also in favour of the complainants.
8. POINT No.3:- The complainants booking their tickets for their journey on 08-12-12 from Guntur to Srisailam vide service code/name 95303/VJA-SSLM and the service category being super luxury service (Exs.A-1 and A-2) are not disputed. The opposite parties field Ex.B-1 i.e., terms and conditions for online bus ticket booking and relied on the clause “In the event of cancellation of a bus/service trip, APSRTC will assist the passenger in providing an alternative similar service subject to availability. In case an alternative is not available, then APSRTC shall be liable to the passenger only to the extent of refunding the sum paid by the passenger as per the rules in force directly to the customer’s credit card/debit card account”. The opposite parties in Exs.A-1 and A-2 mentioned that corporation reserved right to change/cancel the service category/service. But in their version and affidavit the opposite parties mentioned as detailed infra:
“These opposite parties submit that the special service was kept with withdrawal date of 08-12-2012 and all the seats were reserved with the same mode. At Guntur stage “same day/next day” option was given previously whenever Vijayawada-Srisailam was operated as special service. In the instant case, the option might be skipped while moving the mouse resulting this lapse happened. There was no fault or deficiency of service on the part of the driver or the Management of APSRTC, only due to the system’s mechanical fault it was happened”.
9. The same was mentioned in para 8 of their affidavit by their opposite parties. It can therefore be inferred that the said service was not cancelled and as such the above condition in no way help the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not file reservation charts of the said service on 07-12-12 and 08-12-12 to corroborate their contention. Under those circumstances, the contention of the opposite parties as detailed supra did not inspire confidence and therefore cannot be accepted. The contention of the complainants therefore that the service mentioned in Exs.A-1 and A-2 did not reach Guntur bus station has to be accepted. We therefore opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service. We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainants.
10. POINT No.4: The complainants claimed Rs.50,000/- each for the inconvenience they met at Guntur RTC bus station during odd hours of the intervening night of 08/09-12-12. The complainants in their affidavit and complaint mentioned that the opposite parties provided deluxe service. Exs.A-1 and A-2 revealed that three of the passengers were senior citizens. There were no child passengers as revealed from Exs.A-1 and A-2. Any passenger including the complainants will be put to inconvenience during odd hours if any scheduled bus did not arrive at the destination station and for want of information.
11. The complainants also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards unnecessary expenditure incurred by the complainants. The complainants did not file any proof regarding the same to corroborate. The complainants also did not file any proof of their return journey and journey to other pilgrim places. In the absence of such proof the complainants are not entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards unnecessary expenditure.
12. The complainants as already observed were put to inconvenience on the intervening night of 8/09-12-12 till the opposite parties provided alternate service. Any compensation to be awarded should commensurate with the injury/inconvenience complained. Under those circumstances awarding Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience/discomfort faced by the complainants will meet ends of justice. We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainants.
13. POINT No.5:- In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:
1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards deficiency of service.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs.
3. The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount mentioned in clause No.1 will carry interest @9% pa.. from the date of order till payment.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 24th day of June, 2013.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 |
08-12-12 |
Copy of online ticket No.16619836 |
A2 |
08-12-12 |
Copy of online ticket No.16619902 |
For opposite parties:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 |
|
Copy of terms and conditions for online bus ticket booking |
Sd/-XXX
PRESIDENT
