D.O.F:03/03/2017
D.O.O:10/08/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.39/2017
Dated this, the 10th day of August 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Madanan.T.V
Mutticharal 43/17
S/o. M.V Aalami. : Complainant
Iriya.P.O - 671531
And
1. Assistant Transport Officer
KSRTC, Kasaragod
(Adv: Manikandhan Nambiar.K)
2. Raghavan
Conductor Cheruvathur Bus stand duty : Opposite Parties
O/O Assistant Transport Office Payyannur Dipot
Kannur
(Adv: C.V. Damodaran)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act:- The case of the complainant in brief is as follows.
Complainant with intention to go to Thaliparamba got in to a KSRTC bus from Kanhangad on 14/01/2017 at 7.50 am. It was informed that its scheduled arrival is at 9.25 am at Thaliparamba. Mr. Subash was the conductor on duty. Opposite Party No:2 detained the bus at cheruvathur for 19 minutes on the premise, that passengers are less, but allowed journey for another bus arrived later for Manadavadi. Complainant verified through its conductor as to why keeping the bus idle. Conductors replied that he could allow to move the bus only as directed by Opposite Party No:2 . The Opposite Party No:2 when contacted replied that he will decide arrival and departure of bus and waiting for passengers to fill in the bus. When passengers got wild bus stared thereby lost 19 minutes, he missed his connected bus to Alakkod, due to delay on the way to Thaliparamba, thus he suffered mental tension, delayed the journey and missed his connection bus, hence filed the complaint claiming damages of Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental tension Rs. 7500/- and cost of litigation.
2. The Complainant filed IA 181/2017 to cause production of permit and timings of the bus RSC 504 and its way bill plying from Kasaragod to Manadavadi, IA allowed, and IA 158/2018 to cause production of station master check sheet deposit at Kannur on 14/01/2017 and bus from Kasaragod to Manadavadi its timings at Kasaragod and way bill of bus.
3. The Opposite Party filed the written version. Denied the allegations. Allegations that bus is detained at Cheruvathur bus stop for 19 minutes waiting of less passenger and allowed another bus go for Manadavadi are false. His claim that due to delay in running he missed his contact bus to Alakode is false. The said bus reached cheruvathur at 8.35 Am, parked there only for five minutes, bus departed at 8.40 am, bus for Manadavadi was allowed to go early because it is a fast passenger bus. There is no negligence or deficiency in service and five minutes margin if any is for the best interest of public at large and therefore to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 is the bus ticket. Ext A2 to A4 are the check sheet copy Ext A5 and A6 are copy of way bill, Ext A7 and A8 is the time schedule, Ext A9 copy of general instructions, Ext A10 reply information by KSRTC to complainant. Complainant filed argument notes also.
5. Opposite Party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Dw1, Ext B1 to B5 marked. Ext B1 way bill, Ext B2 copy of way bill, Ext B3 check sheet and Ext B4 is duty pattern and Ext B5 Ticket wise details.
6. Considering the complaint, written version filed, documentary and oral evidence following points arise for consideration.
a) whether the vehicle KSRTC bus RSC 504 on its journey on 14/01/2017 was delayed at Cheruvathur bus stop without justification and thereby complainant reached at Taliparamba and missed his connection bus to Alakode?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the service of Opposite Party?
c) Whether complainant is entitled for any damages or compensation if so for what reliefs?
All the points discussed together and findings are recorded accordingly:-
7. Grievance of complainants is that due to detention of bus for 19 minutes in Cheruvathur bus stand, arrival at Thaliparamba is delayed and missed his connecting bus to Alakode. Opposite Party admits that bus reached cheruvathur at 8.35 am, bus departed was at 8.40pm itself. Complainant is so certain in exact minutes namely 19 minutes sharp as if he getting ready to keep records. In his cross examination he testified that he cannot say at what time bus reached his destination Thaliparamba as at Payyannur. He admits that only limited space alone is available at cheruvathur bus stop. Suggestion is made that he is an enimical terms with Opposite Party No:2 . It is hobby to file complaint against KSRTC denied by complainant. It is true that timely service is the essence of bus services. Any delay by the service provider can have far reaching consequences including delay in reaching the destination missing an important event, amongst other. Complainant has no case of willful negligence of driver or conductor or staff otherwise carless with time, and this is a case where service is delayed out of fault of the staff on duty or purposely delay journey of complainant. Complainant has no case that he reached his destination Thaliparamba at a particular time or delayed by so much minutes than scheduled. He has no case that his connection bus scheduled to depart at particular point of time from Thaliparamba.
8. KSRTC buses are regulated by the state. It is a public undertaking. Majority passenger depend KSRTC buses for day to day travel. It is the duty of every undertaking to provide maximum comfort and convenience to the public. Here grievances that bus is detained in 19 minutes waiting for passengers. It is quite concerned a reality during travel there is every livelihood that there will be some delay or gap for reason or other. Roads are so congested with more and more vehicles. Here Opposite Party disputes the claim of 19 minutes late to five minutes delay fairly conceded by Opposite Party. It is quite natural and probable due to various reasons beyond control of Opposite Party in public interest.
9. The crucial question is at what time bus reached his destination namely Taliparamba to which place complainant bus ticket. Further at what time his connection bus from Thaliparamba to Alalkode. Whether there is really missed his intended bus from Thaliparamba to Alakode, at what time his connection bus starts and if delayed at what time he got entry to the connection bus and whether arrival is delayed for which there is no acceptable evidence. Complainant has taken all efforts to produce as many records from custody of Opposite Party. But there is no evidence that there is any willful violation of rules or negligence in their duties or purposely delayed the departure. Complainant did not care to examine any of other passengers in the bus to prove his case. The Opposite Party fairly admits that bus is detained for five minutes at Cheruvathur to enable passenger to enter and exit time margin is quite negligible and not due to malicious intention to harass the complainant individually or collectively, and even if there is little delay in departure of bus from Cheruvathur bus stand so narrow to enable passenger to get little more income to KSRTC. Complainant has no case that he has missed any important event, or suffered mental tension thereby. Under the circumstances, taking note of nature and circumstances that the commission finds that complainant has taken the chance to make the claim over delayed schedule on an experimental basis, to tarnish the most used transport system of the public without any bonefides and liable to be rejected.
10. The Complainant has no case that bus crew acted in a very dis courteous or negligent manner resulting in any hardship or inconvenience to the complainant in terms of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It shall be worthwhile to quote the definition of ‘service’ and ‘deficiency’ as stated in section 2 (0) and 2 (g) respectively in the act in this regard which reads as follows:-
“Section 2(0) “service “ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport”
Section 2 (g) deficiency means any fault, imperfection short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force.
11. For the reasons aforesaid discussion made complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party as averred in the complaint there is no iota of evidence that due to alleged deficiency in service of Opposite Party, complainant suffered mental tension, damage monitory or such other loss since complainant failed to prove that he reached his destination delayed thereby missed any event and thus complainant is not entitled to damage or compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. In the result complaint is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Bus ticket
A2 to A4- Check sheet copy
A5 & A6- copy of way bill
A7 & A8 – Time Schedule
A9- copy of general instructions
A10- Reply information by KSRTC to complainant
B1& B2 – Way bill
B3- Check sheet
B4- Duty pattern
B5- Bus Ticket wise details
C1- Attested copy check sheet
Witness examined
Pw1-Madanan. T.V
Dw1- C.V. Raghavan
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
