The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the refund of excess amount, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- the cost of litigation.
It has been that the complainant is a practicing lawyer of District Bar Association, Malkangiri. Hence is residing at ADMN Colony DNK, Malkangiri. He had boarded a bus bearing registration no. OD 10A-1586 of the opposite party no. 2 on 15th of October 2013 wherein the Opposite party no.1 was a conductor in the bus. During his travel from Mathili to Malkangiri the OP No-1 demanded the complainant to pay Rs. 40/- only towards bus fare for 45 Kms. of distance but as the amount is excess the complainant protested to the OP no-1 as the actual fare is Rs. 27/-. The opposite party no.1 misbehaved with the complainant and deny to provide the complaint box. It is further case as the complainant is that the Op. No-2 being the controlling officer is not guiding and controlling the OP nO-1 for which the OP No-1 collects extra/excess charges and misbehaves to the passengers like the complainant time and again. Due to unfair trade practice of the Ops the complaint was filed for seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
The complainant was opposed by the opposite no.2 by filing a reply denying the contents of the complaint. However, it was admitted that the said alleged Bus was taken by one Sri Mohan Kumar Dhankul, Agent on lease basis and the Conductor was engaged by him only after leasedout the Bus and for that OP nO-2 has no role in this case and the present case is required to dismiss against the O.P. It was further asserted that the alleged OSRTC bus plied from Jeypore to Malkangiri is an Express Bus and the distance from Mathili to Malkangiri is 45 Kms and the government fare is Rs. 0.62 per Km. It is further submitted that the Complainant in order to make some undue gain from the OSRTC has filed this petition on all false and filmsy grounds and prayed for its dismissal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
The complainant asserted that the opposite party no. 1 had misbehaved with him and had charged Rs. 40/-. As per the written version of the OP No-2 it is clear that the alleged Bus is a Express Bus and the charges is Rs. 0.62 per Km. As such the fare for 45 Kms from Mathili to Malkangiri comes to Rs. 27.90 that means Rs. 28/-. In support of his case the complainant has filed the printed ticket of OSRTC marked herein as Exibit-C/1 which clearly reveals that the conductor has taken Rs.40/- as fare from the complainant for travelling from Mathili to Malkangiri whereas the actual fare at the rate of Rs. 0.62 per KM is Rs. 27.90. This act of the opposite party no. 1 in charging the excess amount from the complainant clearly amounts to unfair trade practice. Further it is evident that the relationship between the Opposite Party No-2 and the Opposite parties No-1 is obviously that of the principal and the agent respectively. It is well settled that the principal is liable for every act as the agent except his personal criminal acts. Our above view finds support from the rulings of the Hon’ble National Commission in F.A. No. 495 of 1997 in the matter of M/S Indian Airlines, Delhi & Others versus S.N. Seth & Ors wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held “ Travel agent-confirmed tickets issued by the authorized agent of Indian Airlines- No flight on the date indicated in the air ticket- Liability of Indian Airlines as Principal – held liable. As such the Opposite party no. 2 being the Principal is liable on the principle of vicarious liability.
In the course of hearing it is argued in the bar that due to failure of proper administrative control of the authorities of OSRTC, the Agents and the crew of the OSRTC/Private Buses and the Ticket booking Agents are showing monopolistic behavior in selling the ticket, taking excess fare from the passengers, deviating from the timing of buses and proper service to the passengers besides, man handling the passengers. It is also urged at the Bar that through the office of the Assistant Transport Manager is functioning at Malkangiri but no counter has opened at the office of the ATM, OSRTC, Malkangiri for which the agents are taking excess fare by providing hand written ticket in from No. XLVI and thereafter, regularizing the same in entering it as computerized ticket latter on and there are no rate charte is affixed at the Bus Stand indicating the fare of different places from Malkangiri. Further it is urged that it is a common experience that the crew of the state corporation Buses behaves with the travelling public rudely, indecently and impose their will and pleasure on them. The poor passengers have no way except to bear this and comply with their illegal demands and obey instructions. These crew act as if they are the virtual masters of the Bus. Unless this attitude is change there can be no end for the miseries of the travelling public. The public of this locality also facing monopoloostic behavior of private Buses also.
In support of hid case the complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai in the case of “Subba Reddiar .. Appellant –vs- state Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors…Respondents” reported in I (2005) CPJ 89, decision of Hon’ble Maharashtra State Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the case of “Kurana Traveks.. Applant –vs- Dr. Dilip Govindrao Mhaiskar” reported in III (2003) CPJ 575, decision of Hon’ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in the case of “Ram Singh…Appellant –vs- Waraich Tours & Travels…Responsent” reported in III (2003) CPJ 551 and decision of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in the case of “Thiruvakkuvar Transport Corpn…Appellant –Vs- Siva Prasad & Ors…Respondents” reported in I (2000)CPJ 111 and argued that as per the above decision, the opposite parties of this case are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
Therefore, the present complaint is allowed. The opposite party mo.2 is directed to refund Rs. 12/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of complaint, till its realization. The opposite party no.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and Rs. 2,000/- the costs of litigation within 30 days on receipt of a copy of this order failing which the O.P. No. 2 is liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of default till its realization.
We would also like to clarify that the above amount of Rs. 12/- with interest, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- the cost of litigation shall be paid to the complainant by the Opposite Party No-2 from the public fund immediately but the said amount be recovered from the erring Agent responsible for taking axcess amount from the passenger.
The Opposite Party No-2 is further directed to under take the periodic check of all the OSRTC Buses regularly and in case of any irregularities committees by the agents and take drastic action against them and display the rate and timing Chartes and also Open a Computerized booking counter of OSRTC at Malkangiri within a period of three months.
It is felt necessary to extend a copy of this order to the RTA, Malkangiri and The Transport Commissioner, Odisha for their information and periodical checking of OSRTC/Private Buses regularly to ensure due service to the ensure due service to the passengers and prevention of high handed behavior of Bus staffs and other irregularities.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of this order be communicate to the ATM, OSRTC, Malkangiri for his information and necessary action.
Pronounced in open Court on 16th December, 2014.
