Rebeka Megu filed a consumer case on 03 Aug 2010 against Commuter Network Travels in the East Siang Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/43 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
udgment and Order:
Heard Mrs. Rebeka Megu petitioner and Mr. Alen Perme representing Commuter Network Bus Service, Pasighat.
It is submitted by Mrs. Rebeka Megu that on 14/06/2008 she along with the daughter was coming from Gauhati to Pasighat by availing the bus services of the respondent namely Commuter Network Bus Service, Pasighat. However, the bus could not moved further due to disruption of NH52 near North Lakhimpur. The passengers including petitioners were told by the crew member of the said bus service that alternative arrangement had been made for transshipment of the passengers from the other side of the block point for their onward journey to Pasighat. On hearing this, the petitioner effects by traveling about five kilometers in knee deep flood water. They also hired one autorikshaw. They paid Rs.200 each for the bicycle and autorikshaw. On reaching the place where the bus was supposed to have been parked, they couldn’t found out any bus there. In view of this, they had to hire one maruti car van by paying Rs.500 per head amounting of to Rs.3000 from North Lakhimpur to Pasighat.
Hence, the Petitioner has claimed for payment of compensation from the Commuter Network Bus Service, Pasighat for deficiency service as envisaged under clause(g) of sub section(1) of section 2 of the consumer Protection Act,1986.
On the other hand, the respondent has submitted that there was no deficiency in providing alternative bus service from the block point as a bus was placed at that place for transshipment of all the passengers including the petitioner and her daughter. However, it is different matter that the petitioner couldn’t find the bus but reportedly availed hired maruti van on the block point to Pasighat. Yet, the respondent has admitted that no effort was made from their side to put up signboard or placard or any notice about the transshipment arrangement. He has also stated that there was no communication made between the counter and the bus crew.
Upon hearing of the petitioner and the respondent, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. For, had the respondent put on out any notice for the passengers the petitioner and her daughter would have found out/located the bus meant for them and avoided hiring of extra vehicle by incurring 1400/- in all. Therefore, we do hereby direct the respondent to compensate the said amount to the petitioner and her daughter within seven (7) days from today. No cost is ordered.
With the above direction, the present petition stands disposed of and closed.
Supply copies of this order to all parties for compliance.
Tani Ering Onit Panyang
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.