By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Parties to get cost and compensation for the deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant was a passenger from Sulthan Bathery to Kunnamangalam in a super fast bus bearing No.RAC259-KL15 7420 which was started from Sulthan Bathery at 8.30 pm on 01.06.2012 which was going to Kayamkulam. He took the ticket from Bathery from the 1^st Opposite Party. The bus stopped in all the bus stops from Sulthan bathery onwards, which was questioned by the Complainant and other passengers. The 1^st Opposite Party replied to the Complainant to go by taxi if you have any objection and also not paid the balance ticket fare to the Complainant and he is asked to approach 1^st Opposite Party in Kozhikode depot for getting the balance ticket fare. Due to these deficiency of service by the 1^st Opposite Party the Complainant caused much difficulty, mental agony and loss. The Complainant alighted in Kunnamangalam and the 1^st Opposite Party not paid the balance ticket fare of Rs.4/- to the Complainant.

3. All these are purely a deficiency of service from the side of Opposite parties and Complainant prayed before the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

4. The notice was served to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed version. 1^st Opposite Party denied all the allegation in the complaint and further stated that the Complainant has distorted the real facts with a view to mislead the Hon'ble Forum. The allegation that the Super Fast Bus stopped unusually and that there was no sufficient speed for the bus etc are also not true or correct. Super fast buses are to run keeping the time schedule allotted. No super fast bus can move slowly covering and halting all the places and stops. Likewise it is not the practice of this Opposite Party to keep the balance amount unpaid. This Opposite Party had not occasion to misbehave with the Complainant. All the allegation to the contra are false and hence denied. This Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for psychological  discomfort if any suffered by the Complainant on 01.06.2012. The Complaint is not in accordance with law and is misleading with the distorted facts and hidden agenda on the Complainant's part. The complaint is vexatious nugatory and false and frivolous, against the interest of justice, besides being experimental in nature.

5. The Complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.20,000/- for the alleged sufferings and another sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses etc or any part thereof from this Opposite party. This Opposite party is in no way responsible to pay any amount or fraction thereof to the Complainant . The Complainant might have either misconceived or mal-advised with respect to the allegations and claim raised in the complaint. There had been no such incident happened as alleged in the complaint on the date cited in the complaint. Up on a petition of the Complainant herein, and against the proceedings therein this Opposite party has already on 06.04.2013 moved an appeal before the appellate Forum within the department and the same is pending consideration. Therefore accepting this contentions, the complaint may dismissed with the costs of this Opposite party.

6. Opposite Party No.2 also denied all the allegations and further stated that the complainant had noway connected with this Opposite Party and no dealing took place between the 2^nd Opposite Party and further stated that the so called service is a long route service and thereby itself the bus will stop only in the main towns and they have no knowledge about balance ticket fare and further stated that at the time of complaint the 1^st Opposite party was an M Pannel conductor and that is why also the 2^nd Opposite Party have no liability to pay any compensation. So the 2^nd Opposite Party also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost to this Opposit Parties.

7. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 (Ext.A1 15 pages) is marked. Ext.A1 consist of 15 pages that is the copy of complaint given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party's department and enquiry report thereafter. Ext.A1 page 2, 3, 4 is the report of enquiry officer wherein the enquiry officer found that the 1^st Opposite Party is guilty of offence for stopped the vehicle in an unstop for solve a simple issue between one or two passengers and also found that there was quarrel between the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party and also found guilty for the offence of non refund of Rs.4/- to the Complainant by 1^st Opposite Party. Ext.A2 is the forwarding letter of the enquiry report by the District Transport Officer to the Vigilance Officer KSRTC. Ext.A3 is the memo given by the District Transport Officer to the 1^st opposite party to remit the fine of Rs.100/- after the report of the enquiry officer. Ext.A4 is the warning memo given by the District Transport Officer to the 1^st Opposite Party after enquiry report.

8. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version. From the side of 1^st Opposite party Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.B1 is the second investigation report in the same incident, which is conducted on an appeal filed by the 1^st Opposite Party, after admitting the offence and remitting the fine amount upon his own will and wish and the second investigation officer not examined the complainant and the Ext.B1 is marked with objection since it is a photocopy. By these grounds we have not considered it as a believable document.

9. On considering the complaint, version, deposition and documents and arguments adduced by both parties we taken the following points for consideration.

1. Is there any deficiency of service from the side of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and costs.

10. Point No.1:- On analysing the entire evidence, the Forum found that the 1^st Opposite party is guilty of the offence of non refunding of Rs.4/- and the failure to solve a small issue between him and the Complainant. Even if the guilty of the 1^st Opposite Party is setasided by the further enquiry Officer, the Forum found that the further enquiry is not proper. Since it is a general issue we taken the matter in serious. There are somany classes of service is operated by the Opposite parties like Ordinary, Limited stop, T.T, Fast, Super Fast, Express, Super Express, Delex etc. One who select the class after avoiding other classes may expect some qualities in such class. If the expected/guaranteed qualities of service is not provided by the service providers the passengers may cause irritation and difficulties even though the service may reach at the last destination in correct time after taking over speed etc.

11. Herein this case, the allegation of the Complainant that the bus was stopped in Beenachi which is an unstop which is not challenged by the Opposite Party and thereafter on this issue and on the issue of low speed some altercation were taken place between the parties. Now a days it is a practice of some services which are plying very slowly in some distance and thereafter taking over speed, it may cause somany difficulty such as accident, irritation and difficulties to the passengers also, here also similar problem occurred. Any way on a complaint by the Complainant, an enquiry were conducted by the department and the Enquiry Officer found guilty on 1^st Opposite Party and he had remitted the fine also at his own will.

12. Hence the Forum also on the feelings that there was gross deficiency of service on the part of 1^st Opposite Party in providing proper service and we also uphold the findings of the first enquiry officer. Hence the point No.1 is found accordingly.

13. The Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the 1^st Opposite party, 1^st Opposite Party is liable to pay the balance ticket fare of Rs.4/- to the Complainant and also liable to pay cost and compensation and the Complainant is entitled for the same. The point No.2 is found accordingly.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite party is directed to return Rs.4/- (Rupees Four) to the Complainant which is the balance amount due to him while taking ticket and also directed to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupee Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st Opposite Party should comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the Complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate 12% per annum for whole the amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11^th day of March 2015.

Date of Filing:28.12.2012.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Sabu. Complainant.

PW2. Simon Checking Inspector, KSRTC.

PW3. C. Jayachandran. DTO, Sulthan Bathery.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Balakrishnan. Inspector, KSRTC Depot.

OPW2. Baburaj. Conductor, KSRTC, Sulthan Bathery.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1series (15 Pages) Copy of Complaint

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:27.06.2012.

A3. Copy of 3^rd page of Ext.A2 Letter.

A4. Copy of memo dt:06.07.2012.

A5. Copy of memo

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1 (10 Pages) Copy of Letter. dt:06.05.2013.

X1. Copy of Letter. dt:06.05.2013.