Date of Filing : 30.08. 2012
Date of Order : 01.03.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.264/2012
TUESDAY THIS 1st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
Mr. Mayilai Sugumar,
Advocate,
Chamber No.399,
New Addl. Law Chambers,
High Court premises,
Chennai 600 104. ..Complainant
..Vs..
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Body guard Road,
Chennai 600 002. ..Opposite party.
For the Complainant : M/s. O.A.V. Srimathy
For the Opposite party : M/s. M.Chidambaram
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as mental agony and Rs.6,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that he aged about 60 years travelled in MTC Bus route No.D 51 plying from Medavakkam to High Court by purchasing a valid ticket and travelled on 14.6.2012 stating due to improper seating the complainant developed strain and inconvenience with body pain losting for 55 minutes. Further he states the driver of the vehicle had added salt in the wound by his reckless, rash driving causing fear in every body travelled in that vehicle. So the opposite party had caused all the pain both physical and mental unnecessarily by not maintaining the fleets in a fit condition. This intentional negligence on the part of the opposite party had not provided convenient travel to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claims for a sum of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs.6000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written version opposite party in brief is as follows:
2. The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint has to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The opposite party themselves manufacturing certain buses and some buses were purchased from the Private sector. All the buses both manufacturing and purchased buses were checked and certified by the concerned Regional Transport Officer. After the certification, the buses were
plied in the route. When the seats are placed across the vehicle and are facing the same direction, there shall be everywhere a clear space as indicated i.e. in the case or City and Town buses not less than 68 centimeters and not more than 70 centimeters. Based on the above body building centers are constructed all seating arrangements in each and every vehicle of Metropolitan Transport Corporation. The opposite party is functioning for the benefit and welfare of the travelling public passengers. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
-
5. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version filed by the opposite party and B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.
6. The complainant aged about 60 years travelled in MTC Bus route No.D 51 plying from Medavakkam to High Court by purchasing a valid ticket and travelled on 14.6.2012 stating due to improper seating the complainant developed strain and inconvenience with body pain losting for 55 minutes. And the complainant made averments on the opposite party’s driver who drove the vehicle added salt in the wound by his reckless rash driving and opposite party never took any steps to regulate them. The cause of action and limitation are within the specified limits. Improper maintenance of the buses by MTC is the allegation raised by the complainant which resulted inconvenience to the public. Hence the complainant approached this forum seeking compensation of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs.6000/- as litigation charges.
7. The opposite party did not accept the averments made by the complainant and the said bus where the complainant travelled was driven by adhering to the provision of Motor Vehicle Act and Tamil Nadu State Motor Vehicle Rules. The said vehicle was inspected by the Regional Transport Authority and the specific endorsement was made in the registration book about the roadworthiness of the vehicle and thereby issued the fitness. The seating arrangements were made by the opposite party as per the provision of Sec.59 and 60 and Sec.39 which clearly indicates the fitness of the vehicle which has been elicited in the certificate of validity of fitness. The opposite party had given suitable instruction to the operators of the buses about the behavioral aspects of the driver or conductor vide the circular dated 2.5.2009. At the outset the opposite party had taken all precautions though there was some damages found in some of the fleets which could not be avoided. The complainant had not put forth the allegations made against the opposite party by showing any photograph or any measurement he took between the seats the length and breadth which had obstructed him to have a proper sitting resulting in pain to his body. It is the duty of the complainant to prove any defects either by breakage or by obstructing the passengers with documentary evidence to substantiate the case. The allegations put forward that almost 75% of the MTC drivers are adding salt in the wound by their reckless rash driving causing fear which could not be accepted. Hence the opposite party prays the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In pursuant of compliant, version, proof affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant and the opposite party, we found the complainant had not suffered any physical injury by boarding into the said bus or the complainant had not substantiated any documentary evidence either by photographs or by measurements taken in between the seats by the opposite party in the bus where the complainant sat and travelled. The opposite party had submitted in Tamil Nadu Transport Rules and Motor Vehicle Act provisions and endorsement made by the RTO in the registration certificate about the fitness of the vehicle which is roadworthy. Without any documentary evidence we feel we cannot grant any award on the opposite party, it is suggested the opposite party should take all the precautionary measures without giving any hindrances to the travelling public and make their travel comfort, since there is no prima facie evidence substantiating to prove the allegation on the opposite party. The complainant also miserably failed to prove the deficiency of service attributed against the opposite party in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are ordered to bear their own costs. According the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 1st day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- - - Copy of the MTC bus ticket.
Ex.A2- 14.6.2012 - Copy of the lawyer’s notice.
Ex.A3- 16.6.2012 - Copy of the ack. card.
Opposite party’s side documents:
Ex.B1- - - Copy of Rule regarding RTO Certificate.
Ex.B2- - - Copy of Model of RTO Certificate.
Ex.B3- - - Copy of RTO Certificate for Route No.D-51.
Ex.B4- 18.1.2007 - Copy of circular to Drivers & Conductors.
Ex.B5- 2.5.2009 - Copy of circular to Drivers and conductors.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
