Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/399/2013

Yogesh Rani d/o Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman Sidhi Vinayak - Opp.Party(s)

YC Tyagi

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  399 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 29.5.2013..

                                                                                    Date of decision: 14.8.2015.

 

Yogesh Rani aged about 19 years D/o Madan Lal, resident of C/o her Maternal Grandfather Raj Kumar at village Chhallor, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar through her guardian/attorney Sh. Raj Kumar .    

 

                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                                                       Versus

The Chairman/Principal/Incharge/Head of Department Travelling Section/Bus Services Shree Siddhi Vinayak Educational Trust, Group of Institutions, Shahpur, having its office at Bilaspur Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                   …opposite party.    

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Y.C.Tyagi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. R.C.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Yogesh Rani has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that necessary directions be issued to the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) to provide proper bus services to the complainant i.e. from village Chhallor to Shahpur and Shahpur to Village Chhallor, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar with immediate effect and further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.     

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is student of Educational Institute of OP and she is studying in BBA class while residing at the house of her Maternal Grandfather Sh. Raj Kumar in village Chhallor, who is looking after the complainant and is making the payments of her study to the OP as required from time to time. The complainant got admission in the institution of Op in the year 2012 and at the time of admission, the official of the OP assured that they will providing bus services to the students of the surrounding area and will provide the bus service to the complainant from College Shahpur to Home Chhallor and Home to college on receipt of nominal charges of Rs. 5000/- per year. Feeling it better for the safe journey and security of the complainant her maternal grandfather got her admitted in the institute of OP. Similarly, one another student of village Chhallor was also admitted in the institute of OP on the same assurance. The OP received a sum of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant and other children of village Chhallor on account of bus charges and initially the bus of OP’s used to pick up the complainant and another student from village Chhallor to College at Shahpur and then left them from college Shahpur  to village Chhallor but after few days the officials/ concerned staff of bus services started avoiding the visit of bus at village Chhallor and used to leave above both students at the bus stop of village Rampur Kamboyan, which is about 1.5 K.M. prior from her village Chhallor and she faced hurdles in her journey and there was apprehension of so many happenings with the students in the way.  The maternal grandfather of complainant requested the Op to provide efficient and proper bus serves to the complainant but the OP flatly refused to do so. Finding no other alternative maternal grandfather of complainant also got served a registered AD legal notice on 4.5.2013 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no relationship of consumer and service provider, no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, no locus standi to file the present complaint and on merit it has been mentioned that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2500/- only vide receipt No. 4006 dated 8.10.2012 towards bus charges whereas the OP incurred a lot of expenditure such as cost of the fuel, insurance, salary of staff, payment of taxes (Road Tax & Passenger Tax) to the Govt. and towards depreciation of the bus. The bus facility is being provided to complainant from village Rampur Kamboyan to college and back covering the distance of 13.8 + 13.8 K.M. both side. The OP is charging a very nominal amount from the complainant belonging to rural area, which is very less in comparison to our actual expenditure. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant’s counsel has tendered affidavit of Yogesh Rani  as Annexure CX and documents such as Pamphlet of Sidhivinayak Group of Instituion as Annexure C-1, Photo copies of receipts dated 25.6.2012, 4.9.2012 & 1.10.2012 as Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-4, Photo copy of receipt dated 8.10.2012 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of receipt dated 6.2.2013 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of Registered AD legal notice as Annexure C-7, Postal receipt as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of receipt of D.A.V. Sr. Sec. School as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of receipt of M.R. International School as Annexure C-10, Pamphlet of Shree Siddhivinayak Group of Institutions as Annexure C-11and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party made a statement that he does not want to tender any evidence and closed the same on behalf of opposite party.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant took admission in the OP college i.e. Shree Siddhivinayak Educational Trust, Group of institutions, Shahpur and OP received a sum of Rs. 2500/- on 8.10.2012  on account of bus charges from the complainant from Chhallor to Shahpur and back (Annexure C-5). It is also admitted that the bus facility is being provided to the complainant from village Rampur Kamboyan to college and back covering the distance of 13.8KM +13.8 KM both sides instead of village Chhollar.

8.                     The only point of controversy between the parties is that the OP charged the bus charges of Rs. 2500/- from her village Chhallor to Shahpur and back whereas the bus facility is being provided to her from village Rampur Kamboyan to college and back.

 9.                    Learned counsel for the complainant argued that when the opposite party has charged an amount of Rs. 2500/- for providing service from her village to College and back then the OP cannot be allowed to provide the services of bus up to the point 1.5 KM prior to the destination whereas learned counsel for the OP argued that the distance between both the points is only 1.5 K.M. and OP is providing the bus services at normal charges. Learned counsel for the OP has referred the case law titled as P.T. Koshy & Another Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Others, 2012 (3) CPC page 615 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that Consumer/revision- Matter relating to admission fee in a statutory function of education institution- Matter not covered under “service” under C.P.Act-Complaint under C.P.Act not maintainable.  The case law titled as P.T. Koshy & Another Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Others (supra) tendered by OP is not disputed but not helpful in the present case because it is a dispute for bus service not for admission.

10                    From the perusal of Annexure C-5 receipt of charging of Rs. 2500/- on account of bus fare it is clear that the OP has charged an amount of Rs. 2500/- on account of journey from the village of complainant to College and back as the OP has not mentioned the distance of KM or starting point of the bus and destination. Even the opposite party also failed to explain the reason for not providing bus services from her village to college and back. Hence, the plea of the opposite party is not tenable whereas arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant have weightage. However, complainant failed to prove that the OP has charged Rs. 5000/- from the complainant on this account whereas, as per the version of the OP and receipt Annexure C-5 it is clear that the OP has charged Rs. 2500/- from the complainant on account of bus charges. Hence, the plea of the complainant that OP has charged Rs. 5000/- on account of bus charges is not tenable.

11.                   After going through the above facts we are of the considered view that complainant has suffered due to not providing the bus services from her village to College and back to home which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP but it admitted by both the parties that the complainant has availed the bus services up to village Rampur Kamboyan which is a distance of 13.8 KM from the college. Hence, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to refund Rs. 500/- out of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant for dropping her at bus stop of village Rampur Kamboyan prior to her village Chhallor.

12.                    Hence, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs. 500/- and also to pay Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment, alternative facility for covering the distance of 1.5 KM for each side and also on account of litigation expenses.  So, the complaint is decided accordingly in above terms.  Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per rules.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open court. 14.8.2015.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                 MEMBER