CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 27/03/2015
CC /41/2015
Jose.V. Joseph,
S/o.Joseph,
Vettukallumpurath House, : Complainant
Sasi Nivas, Agali Post,
Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad.
(By Adv.T.Mahesh)
Vs
Babu.B
S/o.Bhaskaran.K.K,
Panayil House, Mamana,
Jellipara Post,
Palakkad-678 581
(Party in Person) : Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant is that on 13/03/2013 at about 6.10 p.m, he hired the opposite party’s taxi from Goolikadavu taxi stand to Kavundikkal and boarded certain laboures and took them to Agali Sambarkode. The complainant had availed the opposite party’s jeep bearing reg. No.KL-09-E-1512 for about 11k.m. distance and demanded Rs.250/- as fare charges. The complainant alleges that the jeep fare collected for the above service was much higher, but the opposite party compelled it from the complainant and forcefully collected it from him. The complainant paid the amount and demanded to issue trip sheet, but the opposite party abused him and threatened him by which the complainant suffered deep mental agony and sufferings. Hence complainant filed a petition before S.I of Police, Agali on 19/03/2015 regarding the denial of trip sheet by the opposite party. By the interference of the police, opposite party issued the trip sheet to the complainant. In the trip sheet issued by the opposite party it is wrongly mentioned as waiting charges for half an hour whereas the complainant alleges that the waiting period was only for 5 minutes. He had also complained about this incident to the Joint RTO of Mannarkkad on 25/3/2015. The complainant alleges that the above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on their part. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party grant to refund the excess amount of Rs.100/- collected from him and also to grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the mental agony and sufferings towards the loss of working days and cost of this litigation.
The notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Opposite party denied all the allegation contained in the complaint. As alleged in the complaint the complainant had not hired his taxi on 13/03/2015. Instead a person named Jayan who was a companion of the complainant had hired his jeep from Goolikadavu stand to Kavundikkal. The said Jayan did not accompany in the jeep hired but followed him in the motor bike till Kavundikkal. From there they boarded certain instruments used for cutting timber along with certain laboures to Sambarkode. The Jeep waited for complainant at about 15 minutes at Goolikadavu point. Again he was asked to wait at Agali point for the laboures for taking food. Again he waited for the complainant and his companion “Jayan” at Sambarkode point for about 10 minutes. Since he could not find both of them at that point he left without collecting the fare charge. The opposite party submits that he had only mentioned less distance in the trip sheet issued and he had to wait more than half an hour at different points. On 17/03/2015 when the opposite party met the complainant at Goolikadavu stand he demanded for the charges. The complainant in turn demanded to issue the trip sheet. When the opposite party was about to write the trip sheet the complainant threatened the opposite party saying that he will teach him a lesion by using the trip sheet. Hence opposite party failed to issue the trip sheet. Later the complainant filed a petition before S.I of Police, Agali and then the opposite party issued the trip sheet to the complainant. Further the complainant filed a complaint before Joint RTO. The opposite party appeared before the RTO and submitted that he had not collected excess charges from the complainant. The complainant had filed this complaint only as a personal vengeance based on a previous incident. The opposite party had done nothing to defame the complainant or to cause mental agony to him. There is no deficiency of service for the part of opposite party’s as alleged in the complaint. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party has not filed affidavits. Ext.A1 to A4 was marked. The matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES
We have perused the complaint as well as documents produced before the Forum. The allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party has collected excess charges from the complainant. The Forum does not have the powers to determine the charges according to the distances. The charges according to the distance has to be determined by the appropriate authorities. Only then the deficiency of service can be determined by this Forum. Excepting the complaints no order from the concerned authorities is produced before the forum to show that the opposite party has collected excess charges from the complainant. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly. Hence the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.
In this context the complaint is dismissed for proper adjudication before the concerned authority. In the result complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of October, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Original Trip sheet dtd.13/03/2015
Ext.A2-Copy of the complaint dtd.21/03/2015 issued by the complainant to Joint RTO, Mannarkkad.
Ext.A3-Original receipt of complaint dtd.25/03/2015
Ext.A4-Copy of complaint to Agali Police Sub Inspector dated 19/03/2015
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
