BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 16^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein under referred as an Act) has filed the complaint for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to refund Rs.1,870/- towards issue of bus pass along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment

(b) To award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony etc.,

(c) To award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards education loss.

(d) To award the transportation expenses of Rs.15,000/- towards negligence and deficiency of service.

(e) To pay the cost of proceedings.

(f) To grant such reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant being the student of 2^nd year Engineering in Dayananda Sagar College and as per the Rules of OP, he has paid Rs.1,870/- on 13.09.2018 through her bank account.  But, OP failed to issue bus-pass. Despite repeated visit, the OP neither issued bus-pass nor refunded the amount.  The complainant waited from 13.09.2018 to 10.02.2020.  Despite issuance of legal notice, the OP failed to comply the request of the complainant.  The OP has committed deficiency of service.  OP made the complainant to suffer mentally.  The complainant took treatment for her mental condition and health condition.  Hence, this complaint.

3. After receipt of notice, OP appears and files version.  The OP admits payment of Rs.1,870/- by the complainant through online.  But, complainant failed to complete the necessary procedure.  The complainant never visited the office of the OP from July 2018 to February 2019.  Visitors book maintained by the Op for the relevant period indicates that the complainant never visited the office of OP.  The Op has refunded Rs.1,870/- through online on 24.02.2020 to the complainant and same has been intimated to the advocate for the complainant by letter dated 27.02.2020.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Therefore, OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant files her affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents.  OP has filed affidavit evidence of its official and rely on two documents.

5. Heard the arguments of the advocate for complainant only.  No argument is advanced on behalf of OP.  Perused the records. 

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Even though, both the parties have filed affidavit evidence with documents in support of their respective contention.  The payment of Rs.1,870/- by the complainant to OP through online is not in dispute.  It is also proved from the evidence that even though complainant paid the amount of Rs.1,870/- by transfer to the OP on 13.09.2018.  It is also proved from Ex.B.2 that the OP has refunded this amount on 24.02.2020 and intimated the advocate for complainant.  But, complaint came to be filed on 02.03.2020. Subsequent to file the complaint, the complainant has not intimated this Commission above receipt of refund of Rs.1,870/- on 24.02.2020. Now, it has been proved that the amount of Rs.1,870/- came to be refunded to the complainant on 24.02.2020. 
9. It is specific contention of the complainant that even though she visited the office of OP from 18.09.2018 to 10.02.2020, OP failed to refund the amount stating that money will be transferred in 10-12 days.  But, OP has produced the visitors book maintained in its office between July 2018 to February 2019, this book does not indicate that the complainant visited the office of OP between July 2018 to February 2020.  This book does not indicate that the complainant visited the office of OP during the above period.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that she visited the office of OP between 18.09.2018 to 10.02.2020.  It is also definite case of the OP that due to non-compliance of procedure, neither pass issued nor amount refunded.  But, such contention is unbelievable.  The delay on the part of OP in not refunding the amount within reasonable time, amounts to deficiency of service.  Under such circumstances, the OP is liable to compensate and pay the cost of litigation to the complainant.
10. The complainant claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- for loss of studies, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.  But, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate this claim.  When there is deficiency of service on the part of OP and even though amount is refunded after lapse of two years, the OP is liable to compensate the complainant.  Therefore, the compensation is quantified at Rs.3,000/- and cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.2,000/-.
11. The claim of the complainant for compensation, loss of study, cost of transportation and cost of litigation are too exorbitant.
12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion above and reasons assigned in the preceding paragraph, complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The OP is liable to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 30 days from this day.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 16^th March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-