Before the District Forum,Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday this the 8th day of July ,2003
C.D.No.08/2003
C.Joga Rao,
S/o Brahmeswara Rao,
Practicing Advocate,
R/o. 43/34-A,
N.R. Peta,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel Sri.C.Joga Rao, Advocate, (IN PERSON).
-Vs-
1. APSRTC,
Represented by its Vice Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Musheerabad,
Hyderabad. . . . In Person
2. The Regional Manager,
APSRTC,
Kurnool. …. Opposite party No.2 represented by his counsel
Sri.P.Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate.
3. The Depot Manager,
APSRTC,
Nandyal. … In Person.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is Under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs.111/- with interest at 24% per annum from 24-01-2003 till realization along with Rs.20,000/- as to damages for mental agony suffered Rs.5,000/- towards the costs and the other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case as per his complaint is that on 24-01-2003 he boarded as Super Deluxe Coach, Hi-Tech Coach of the APSRTC at Hyderabad Mahatma Gandhi Bus Stand. The number of the aid bus was AP10 Z 7702 with service No.4242 bound to Nandyal and travel in it to Kurnool he paid a fare of Rs.111/- obtaining a corresponding ticket accordingly. While from the nominee cloture of the category of the said bus the performance and the service to be provided must be of a quality the seat No.1 allotted to him was with insufficient leg space due to its location at the entrance and partition from the Driver Cabin. It is further stated that the said bus was not provided with any Television set in its cabin mint for it for entertaining the persons in their journey with nay video tapes. Due to the said deficiency he could not felt comfortable in stretching his legs to ease him in long journey of 4.40 minutes and thereby not happy and content of the said journey and on the other hand developed swellings of both legs and was constrained to make a Medical treatment under a Doctor incurring Medical Expenditure for Medicines etc., As the opposite party become habituated in extending inferior and deficient services to the passengers and experiencing of the said inferior deficiency of service in not providing T.V. and V.C.R. in Video Coach on 27-03-2001 he addressed a letter to the opposite party No.1 for which the later expressed regrets for the said inconvenience assuring of improved service in its letter No.L4/184(14)/2001-OPD-T dated 19-04-2002. But there is neither any change nor any improvement in the said service as assured in subsequent times also as the bus he travelled even though a Hi-Tech Super Deluxe Coach it is not provided with any T.V. and V.C.R. in the cabin ment for it for the entertainment of the passengers till their journey. The non providing of adequate space before the seats occupied by him shows the negligent attitude of the opposite parties and their inferior and deficiency in service and driven him to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant relies upon the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 Viz., (1) Computer fare Ticket dated 24-01-2003 for Rs.111/- in Hi-Tech Bus No.AP10 Z 7702 for the journey to Krunool form Hyderabad in seat No.1 in the Nandyal bound Hi-Tech. (2) Letter dated 19-04-2002 addressed by the Vice Chairman and the Managing Director of APSRTC to the complainant as to the nonfunctioning of the T.V. and V.C.R in the bus due to improper handling and maintenance and hence the entrustment of their rectification and maintenance to the contractor for a period of 5 years with effect from02-04-2002 and the completion of the said work by the contractor within a short period. (3) Medical Prescription of the complainant. And (4) A cash memo bill for Rs.90.50 Ps., for the Medicines purchased. The complainant placed reliance on his sworn affidavit dated 07-04-2003 also besides to above exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 in reiteration of his case and proof of the complaint averments and the supra documents.
4. While the opposite parties 1 and 3 remained absent in-spite of the service of the notice from the Forum as to the case without contesting the matter. The opposite party No.2 contested the matter filing its written version denying the alleged inferior service and deficiency of service and requiring its strict proof by the complainant alleges further the said bus No.AP10 Z 7702 as a Hi-Tech provided with push back seats and the seat No.1 allotted to the complainant was also a push back one and the space between the seats were maintained as per the morns fixed by the Motors Vehicle Act and the Drivers cabin in no way caused any in convenience. Except the non providing of the video facility on that day as it was sent for repairs occasioned in it were and tare it denies of any inconvenience or deficiency of service to the complainants comfortable journey in the said bus and hence for want of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant it seeks the dismissal of the complaint and in support of its contentions it relies upon the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether any deficiency of service of the opposite parties was established by the complainant as alleged and whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
6. As the travel of the complainant on 24-01-2003 in the said bus was not disputed by the opposite party there is not much difficulty in accepting the Ex.A1 as the ticket under which the complainant performed journey in the said bus on the said date.
7. From the letter in Ex.A2 and the admissions of the opposite party No.2 in its written version as to the providing of the T.V. and V.C.R. facility what follows is that the facility of the T.V. and V.C.R. is to the Video Coach Hi-Tech/Luxury bus and on account of their improper handling they are not functioning properly and hence were entrusted to the contractor of their provisioning and maintenance for a period of 5 years with effect from 02-04-2002 and they will be completed within a short period. As the Electronic Goods are suspect able for its repairs occasioned due to various reasons there mere non availability in the bus at a particular point of time especially when they were said to be under repair cannot be found fault with the opposite parties as any of their willful neglects to provide such facility and there by any of their deficiency of service in that regard. But that doe’s not necessary mean the APSRTC can take shelter under it always. Hence the opposite parties are required to see their proper and effective maintenance in reducing the deprival of such a privilege to the high price paid passengers to display their bonafidies and to see this kind of complaint should not arise in future. But however as the opposite parties did not place any such material as to their diligent effort in seeking a harmonious maintenance of the said privilege to the benefit of the high fare paid passengers such as the present complainant i.e., placed any material as to the sending of said instruments for playing video tapes and T.Vs. etc., in recent past for their repair and they were left with no reasonable time thereafter to restore them by the time of the complainant complaining of deprival of the said privilege meat for such tope of buses. There appears lack of efficient service on the part of the opposite parties in this regard and in the said circumstances an order to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant for the said deprivation appears to meet the ends of justice.
8. Now as to the aspect of the complainant’s deprivation of the seat facility. It is submitted by the opposite party No.2 that he seats in the said bus including that allotted to the complainant was with push back facility and the intermediate space in between the rows of the seats as per the approved specification of the Motor Vehicle Provision Act. The said fact was not much disputed by the complainant. The said seats of the bus being provided with push back facility the complainant felt any necessity for a convenient possession in the said seat must have availed the said facility. There is no material from the complainant’s side that he suffered discomfort in-spite of using the said facility. When such is a case he cannot comply of any personal discomforts peculiar to him as a generalized cause at the cost of any deficiency of service of the opposite parties. Further the complainant did not establish with any Medical Evidence of the said Doctor that the complication for which the complainant suffered was possible on account of any inconvenience feeling in journey. Therefore the mere medical prescription and the purchase bill mentioned in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 which are not bearing any dates even to proximate them to the said date of journey they are not remaining of any avail to the complainant in finding any deficiency of service of the opposite parties in providing a seat for comfortable journeys of any ordinary prudent especially when the complainant has not made any endeavor to establish the seats in the said bus were not for any specifications. Hence the complainant is remaining utterly failed in establishing any deficiency of service of the opposite parties in providing a proper seat for comfortable journey of an ordinary prudent and any link in between the alleged Medical Treatment and the said journey and hence the complainant is not remaining entitled for any medical reimbursement of the amount of the bill shown in Ex.A4 or for any compensation on that ground. Nor he remains entitled to the refund of ticket fare sought as he performed journey and failed to establish the alleged discomfort his seat for performing a comfortable journey.
9. Consequently, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent of ordering the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency of service in not providing the Video facility in the said bus and partly dismissed as to the extent of deficiency or inferior service in providing a proper seat for comfortable journey and also as to his claim for the alleged incurred Medical Expenses for the reasons state supra.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service in not providing the video in the said bus. Time granted to the opposite parties for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default of compliance as stipulated the opposite parties are to pay the said awarded amount within 12% interest per annum from the date of the said journey till realization. In the circumstances each of the party to this case to bear their own
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the open Court, this the 8th day of July, 2003.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties :- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant :-
Ex.A1 Ticket dated 24-01-2003 issued by AOSRTC Bus bearing
No.AP10 Z 7702.
Ex.A2 Letter dated 19-04-2002 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A3 Medical Prescription issued by Dr.K.GSharat Chandra, Kurnool to the complainant.
Ex.A4 Medical Bill No.1422 dated Nil issued by Sri.Mohan Medical Hall, Kurnool to the complainant.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties :- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
