Orissa

Cuttak

CC/100/2020

Smt. Bhanupriya Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman-cum -MD,OSRTC - Opp.Party(s)

G P Jena

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.100/2020

Smt. Bhanupriya Mohanty,

W/O:Nilamani Mohanty,

At:Pankala,PO:Gopapur,

P.S:Badamba,Dist:Cuttack.                                                        ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.       Chairman-cumManaging Director,

OSRTC,At:Paribahan Bhawan,

Ashok Nagar Munsif-Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khordha.

 

2.       General Manager,OSRTC,

At: Paribahan Bhawan,

Ashok Nagar Munsif-Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khordha

 

3.         Unit-in-charge,OSRTC,BBSR,

At/PO:BBSR/Dist:Cuttack                                                        .....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    25.11.2020

Date of Order:  25.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. G.P.Jena,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps :                           None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member

            The complainant’s case in short is that the conductors deployed by the OSRTC did not generate sufficient income for which it was not able to clear the liabilities.  Hence, the OSRTC decided to allow the private persons to operate the OSRTC buses in the way private operators are operating the buses.  By such process the OSRTC got income and could be able to generate some profit.  It is further case of the complainant is that in the year 2018, OSRTC invited tender for chartering of routes all over Odisha and  in pursuance to such tender notice, the complainant applied for one of the routes and became successful.  The complainant was allotted two number of OSRTC buses bearing Regd. No.OR-02DP-1603 and OR-02DP-1604(High Comf.).  The buses which were allotted in favour of the complainant were allowed to operate in the same route, that is to say in-between Bhubaneswar to Keonjhar via Telkoi with 83% of pay load.  An agreement was executed between the complainant and the O.Ps on 20.11.18 to that effect.  As per the agreement the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the security deposit.  The agreement was for a period of one year i.e, with effect from 23.11.18 to 22.11.19.  It is further case of the complainant is that the buses were exempted from checking by the OSRTC, so that competitive spirit would be imbibed into the private person and there will be competition with private operators for lifting of the passengers in sufficient number at different stoppages even in some cases by reducing the fare.  It is further stated that on 10.2.19 her vehicle was checked by DTM,OSRTC,Sambalpur,  1 km before Jagamohanpaur when it was alleged by the O.Ps that the complainant was not available in the bus and one outsider namely Sunil Kumar Sahoo was operating the bus and further it was alleged that there were six passengers going in the bus having no tickets as because  the conductor had failed to issue the tickets to them through the ETM machine which is violation of clause-24 of the Agreement as well as Corporate Office order no.8516/MIS/194/18 dt.26.7.19.  Basing on such report, the O.Ps had cancelled the agreement on 18.11.19.  The complainant knowing about such cancellation, immediately had submitted representation to the O.Ps on 25.11.19 and on 11.1.20 but the O.Ps had not replied to her representations.  The complainant alleged that the cancellation of allotment in her favour is totally illegal, since the vehicle was allotted on charter basis and target was fixed to generate the targeted income.  Hence, there was no justification for checking of the buses allotted in favour of  the complainant and there was no violation of condition of allotment.  As the O.Ps cancelled the agreement, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps had approached this Commission with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps to refund the security amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest accrued thereon to the tune of Rs.30,000/-  and for compensation towards her mental agony to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and for other expenses including to and fro fare to Bhubaneswar to the tune of  Rs.12,000/- as well as her litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of certain documents in order to prove her case.

2.         The O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested this case.  Hence they were set exparte.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Points no.1,2 & 3.

            The O.Ps had floated a tender call notice no.11531 dt.18.8.18 for allotment to run  buses in-between  Bhubaneswar to Keonjhar via Telkoi(two number of High.Comf) service on charter for one year from 23.11.18 till 22.11.19.  An agreement was executed between the Complainant and OSRTC on dtd.20.11.18 to that effect.  The complainant as per the agreement had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards security deposit.  On 10.2.19 DTM(OSRT,Sambalpur) checked the bus allotted in favour of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OD-02-DP-1603 plying from Bhubaneswar to Keonjhar at a distance of 1 km before Jagamohanpur and had found that one Sri Sunil Kumar Sahoo, an outsider was conducting the bus and carrying six passengers without tickets.  All the passengers had paid their fare to the conductor but the conductor had failed to issue tickets to all the passengers through E.T.M which is violative of Clause-24 of the agreement, executed in-between the complainant and the O.Ps.  The complainant is unable to produce any evidence to the effect that he is a consumer under the Act.  The dispute as regards to violation of the agreement does not come under the purview of C.P.Act.  Furthermore, the complainant’s main prayer is for issuance of direction to the O.Ps for refund of security deposit amount but it is settled principle of law that non-refund of the security deposit amount does not come under the purview of the C.P.Act,2019.  In view of the above discussions, it is held that the complainant’s case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                               ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                         Member

 

                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                        President