D.O.F:17/06/2022
D.O.O:30/11/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.125/2022
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Laisamma Abraham
Thulisserial
Varakkottuvayal
P O Pulicode
Kasaragod district.
671310.
: Complainant
And
Assistant Transport officer
KSRTC
Kalppata Depot.
Wayanad
671321.
(Adv: Vinay M.E.) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is that when she was travelling in opposite party KSRTC bus from Chittarikal to Kanhangad, she was abused and insulted by the conductor in front of other passengers for expressing her inconvenience for a delay of 30 minutes which was not informed to her earlier.
The facts of the case in brief is that, the complainant who is a retired teacher was travelling in opposite party bus from Chittarikal to Kanhangad on 15/06/2022, she was in a hurry to reach Kanhangad. Before entering into the bus, she enquired to the conductor whether the bus is going directly to Kanhangad. But when the bus reached at Bheemanadi, the conductor announced that there is a small time for lunch and driver, conductor and some other passengers went for lunch. They came back only after 30 minutes. Within that time, many buses passed through that point to Kanhangad. So, when the conductor entered into the bus after lunch, the complainant told him that if such a long delay is there, it would have informed to her earlier. These words made the conductor angry and due to sudden provocation, he scolded her and insulted her in front of other passengers. The said bus was allotted for conducting trip from 7.10 Kalpetta-Kanhangad Town-Town services and the bus reached late at Kanhangad. Due to the misbehavior of the conductor, the complainant had undergone severe mental agony and reached very late. She was claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the same.
According to the version filed by opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has suppressed material facts in the complaint and approached the Commission with unclean hands. The opposite party further states that it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of provisions of CP Act 2019. Each and every service of KSRTC is being operated on the basis of an approved time schedule and employees who are conducting the service are bound to follow the scheduled time. The said service would be started at 7.10 from Kalpetta and it should be reached at Bheemanadi at 12.55. After a continuous journey of around 6 hours, the bus has 30 minutes halting time at Bheemanadi and the journey would be continuing at 13.25. Usually the passengers, driver and conductor have been taking halting time for lunch and refresh. The complainant entered into the bus from Chittarikkal and when the bus reached at Bheemanadi, the conductor announced loudly that there is 30 minutes halt at Bheemanadi. Thereafter they went for lunch. When they came back and the bus has started from Bheemanadi the complainant has staring to scold the driver and conductor with regard to the halting. While driving is a job that requires extreme care, the complainant was abuse towards the driver in such a way that it diverted his attention. Inspite of the reason for halting is properly explained by the conductor, the complainant continued her argument. The opposite party further denies the petition averment that the bus was supposed to come from Kunnamkai to Neeleswaram went straight to Bheemanadi. The service should be conducted via Chittarikal-Narukkilakad route. Due to road maintenance work on this route, the bus reached Bheemanadi via Kunnamkai. There is no bus service from Bheemanadi to Kanhangad in between 12.35 and 13.25. There is no allegation of defect/default/negligence or deficiency in service the alleged complaint to be made responsible by the opposite party. The contentions in the complaint are wholly misconceived, groundless and false. And the prayer clause made therein is absolutely wrong and is impractically denied. The complainant is not entitled to any relief in the form of cost. The complainant has no cause of action to file the above complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 bus ticket of the complainant on that day was marked. From the side of complainant, PW2 is examined. The opposite party filed witness list which is allowed. The conductor and driver who were on duty on that day in the aforementioned bus were examined as DW1 & DW2 for opposite party, but no cross recorded. Ext.B1, duty time card of the aforesaid bus is marked. Both sides heard.
The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any misconduct from the side of the opposite party conductor as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all points can be considered together. The case of the complainant is that she travelled in opposite party’s bus from Chittarikal to Kanhangad. Before entering into the bus, she asked the conductor whether the bus is going directly to Kanhangad. Believing the words of the conductor, she purchased ticket. But when the bus reached at Bheemanadi, the conductor announced loudly that there is halt time for lunch at Bheemanadi. Thereafter, the conductor, driver, and some other passengers went for lunch. But when the bus was started from Bheemanadi, the complainant told the conductor that if there is delay he could have inform her earlier. In the meanwhile many buses passed to Kanhangad and the complainant was in a hurry to reach at Kanhangad. Due to a sudden provocation, the opposite party conductor shouted and scolded the complainant. PW2 who is a co-passenger of the bus on that day witnessed the incident affirmed the complainant’s statement before the Commission. The conductor and driver of the bus were also examined as DW1&2. According to the conductor (DW1), he is working as a first grade conductor in Kalpetta unit. Usually, the bus starts from Kalpetta at 7.10 AM and reaches Kanhangad at about 2.30 PM. And the complainant entered in the bus from Chittarikkal and purchased ticket to Kanhangad. When the conductor informed her that there is halt of 10 minutes at Bheemanadi to have lunch, the complainant was talking in phone during that time. Due to the block, the bus reached at Bheemanadi at 01.05 instead of 12.55. As soon as the bus is parked in Bheemanadi, I announced the passengers that 20 minutes halt is there for lunch. When we came back after having lunch, the complainant was shouting by saying many buses passed to Kanhangad. We did not make any unnecessary talk. Instead the complainant shouted to us. I suggested her that, if you have any complaint, give a written complaint. There is no deficiency of service from our side. DW2 the driver the KSRTC bus deposed before the commission that the bus has completed the schedule as usual when the bus reached at Bheemanadi, it is announced that 20 minutes halt is there for lunch. Then there was no objection from the passengers and the complainant. As soon as we came back after lunch, the complainant shouted by saying that it is too late and many buses passed to Kanhangad. When the complainant enquired to the conductor before entering into the bus, whether the bus is going directly to Kanhangad, then he did not informed her that there is a delay of 30 minutes at Bheemanadi for lunch. She is in a hurry and wanted to reach Kanhangad at the earliest. By evaluating the depositions made by DW1 & DW2, there are contradictions. The complainant was not informed about 30 minutes halt at Bheemanadi before boarding in to the bus. In the deposition of Dw1, 10 minutes delay is announced when she mentioned this to the conductor he became arrogant and scolded her in front of other passengers. As a senior lady, and a retired teacher, she got insulted in front of other passengers and undergone sever mental agony. Moreover, the bus was very late due to the block and halt. All these things made her upset. By evaluating the statements given by the witnesses, certainly, there was misconduct from the side of the conductor which caused severe mental agony to the complainant. According to the deposition of PW2, the opposite party (conductor) insulted the complainant in front of other passengers. She is entitled for relief. Regarding the quantum of relief, the prayer of the complainant is for Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Actually, she is hurted and her pain is due to the misconduct of the conductor of the KSRTC bus. In this case, the conductor is liable for his misbehavior, and not KSRTC. Therefore, the conductor Girish who is examined as DW1 is personally liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission holds that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case along with a cost of Rs.3,000/-.
Therefore, the complaint is allowed directing opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party can retain the aforementioned amount from the conductor Gireesh.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Bus ticket
B1 – Duty time card of the bus
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Laisamma Abraham
PW2 – Sophiyamma K M
DW1 – K. Girish
DW2 – Ashraf K
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
