Date of filing : 05-01-2012
Date of order : 03-12-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.06/2012
Dated this, the 3rd day of December 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
1. Prema.K, H.S.A (English) } Complainants
G.H.S.S. Chemnad. Kasaragod.Dt
2. Aruna.N. H.S.A( Physical Science),
G.H.S.S. Chemnad. Kasaragod.Dt
3. Hidha.K.M. H.S.A (Sanskrit),
G.H.S.S. Chemnad. Kasaragod.Dt.
4. Savita Nambiar, H.S.A (English),
G.H.S.S. Chemnad. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Complainants 1 to 4 Adv. K.Shrikantha Shetty,
Kasaragod)
1. Conductor, } Opposite parties
On duty 23-12-2011,
Bus No.KL 15/7193 (KGD RAA 44)
C/o. Asst. Transport Officer, K.S.R.T.C,
Kasaragod.
2. Checking Inspector,
On duty 23-12-2011,
Bus No.KL 15/7193 (KGD RAA 44)
C/o. Asst. Transport Officer, K.S.R.T.C,
Kasaragod.
3. Assistant Transport Officer,
K.S.R.T.C, Kasaragod.
4. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Ops 1 to 4.Adv.K.V.Prabhakaran, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
That the complainants are teachers by profession and they are regular passengers of KSRTC Bus. On 23-12-2011 they boarded a KSRTC Bus KL.15/7193 from Kottaruvam for going to Kanhangad to attend the cremation ceremony of their colleague’s mother. The bus was overcrowed. After passing two stops the checking inspector of the KSRTC entered into the bus and asked the ticket from the Second complainant who was sitting on the front side. The 2nd complainant told to the checking inspector that the conductor did not reached to their side and that is why they have not purchased the tickets and asked four tickets giving `100/- to the checking inspector. The checking inspector after receiving `100/- move back and after some time he came back with the conductor and issued four tickets worth total of `68/- to the second complainant. He has not paid the balance amount of `32/-. Then the 2nd complainant demanded the balance amount. At that time the checking inspector started to quarrel with the complainants by saying that the complainants have to pay `2000/- otherwise he will handover the complainants to the police and he further insulted that it is just like after eating meals from hotel and going without paying etc. The 2nd opposite party continued to insult the complainants infront of other co-passengers especially infront of their students. The complainants requested the 2nd opposite party that don’t insult them in making such commends and the delay in taking the ticket is not willful or deliberate. It is due to the rush in the bus. But the 2nd opposite party has not stopped in making unnecessary commends against the complainant. According to the complainants the 2nd opposite party was not worn his uniform and has not exhibited his identity card. The 2nd opposite party has not return back the balance amount. After getting down the bus the 1st complainant vomitted due to mental tension. The misbehaviour of the 2nd opposite party towards the lady passengers is not justifiable and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
2. On receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their version.
The opposite parties denied all the allegations made against them by the complainants. According to the opposite parties the complaint is not maintainable since the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties. The further contention of the opposite parties is that the complainants are not consumer because there is no consumer relation between the complainants and opposite parties. The opposite parties admitting the fact that the complainants are teachers by profession and they are regular passengers of KSRTC Bus. The opposite parties also admits that the complainants travelled in KL 15/7193 Bus on 28-12-2011 from Kottaruvam to Kanhangad. According to opposite parties Kottaruvam is the fare stage No.1 from Kasaragod to Kanhangad and when the squad inspector boarded the bus from Poochakkad before fare stage No.4 for checking the tickets it was ditected that four lady passengers were not in possession of tickets and they told to the inspector that the conductor did not come to their side. The squad inspector entered into the bus after passing the bus 13 approved stops. The opposite parties further submits that since the squad inspector is exempted from wearing uniforms he was not worn his uniform. On demand the inspectors will show their identity card issued by the corporation. It is further submits that there were 70 passengers in the bus therefore there is no lapse on the side of the conductor in issuing tickets. Those other passengers seated to the side of the complainants were also obtained tickets. It is further stated that the squad inspector directed to issue 4 tickets of `17/- each and also informed the four ticketless passengers that, journey without proper ticket is an offence under Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Hence `500/- each will be inflicted upon the passengers and for that their house address was needed. As per GO (P) 1/2008/Tran dtd.3-1-2008 the inspectors are empowered to realize `500/- from the ticketless passengers in the KSRTC Bus and that amount will be paid to the Government revenue. The teachers questioned the authority of the squad inspectors when they informed them the rule of the Corporation and the fault of one should not be the penalisation of the other and if any misbehaviour or abusive words showered towards the lady passengers the complaints ought to have filed complaint before opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.4 before the police. There is no misbehaviour on the part of the opposite parties and there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Here the 2nd complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked on the side of opposite parties DW1 and DW2 are examined and Exts B1 to B7 marked.
4. On going through the evidence adduced by both parties and on perusal of documents the following questions raised for consideration
1. Whether the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties?
2. Whether the complaints are ticketless passengers as per the Motor Vehicles Act1988?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. If so what is the relief as costs and compensation?
5. Issue No.1: According to the opposite parties opposite party No.3 and 4 are unnecessary parties and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. 3rd opposite party is the Assistant Transport Officer, KSRTC Kasaragod and 4th opposite party is the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C, Thiruvananthapurm. Here the KSRTC is the service provider to the public. The Corporation is providing the service through their employees. Here opposite party No.3 and 4 are representing the Corporation. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the employees of KSRTC and KSRTC is the employer to them. Therefore the relationship between opposite parties 1 and 2 with 3rd and 4th opposite parties are employees and employer relation. Any act done by the employees is treated as act done for and on behalf of the employer. Hence the act done by opposite parties 1 and 2 is the act done for and on behalf of the Corporation represented by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.4. Therefore opposite parties 3 and 4 are not mis-joinder of parties. But they are necessary parties in the complaint. The 1st issue is answered accordingly.
6. The opposite parties contended that when the squad inspector boarded the bus from Poochakkad before fare stage no.4 it was detected that the four lady passengers were not in possession of tickets and they disclosed the inspector that they boarded the bus from Kottaruvam, the fare stage No.1 and proceeded towards Kanhangad, fare stage No.5. Here the complainants told the inspector that the conductor did not come to our side that is why they were not taken the tickets. But according to the opposite parties the complainants intentionally or deliberately not taken the tickets. But the contention of the opposite parties is not sustainable because if the complainants have any intention not to take the tickets they will not disclose the exact place of boarding. Usually while travelling in a bus we have no such practice of going to the conductor and taking the ticket at first. Usually after boarding a bus if we got a seat we will sit there and we will purchase the ticket when the conductor come and ask the destination. In KSRTC bus also we exercised the same practice. There is no such practice in any bus that the conductors are sitting in a separate seat and to issue the tickets to the passengers. They are moving in the bus and issuing tickets. Usually the conductors are sitting after completing their works. Nobody will go and purchase the tickets from the seat of the conductor. Therefore the explanation of the complainants are justifiable. Moreover, the bus is overcrowded. Another issue is whether the complainants are ticketless passengers? The reason stated by the complainants is that the bus was overcrowded. The opposite parties also admits the same and stated in their version that there is no latches on the part of the conductor in issuing tickets since the bus was overcrowded That means due to over crowed the conductor was not reached to the side of the complainants. Moreover, the checking inspector inspected the bus not at the time of departure of the complainants. Admittedly the complainants are regular passengers of KSRTC. They never escape from taking tickets since the conductors of KSRTC and the complainants are meeting regularly. Moreover the opposite parties have no case that the conductor approached the complainants for issuing tickets but they were not ready to take tickets. On giving `100/- to the Inspector for purchasing the tickets by the complainants shows that they were ready to purchase tickets. The inspector appointed by the KSRTC is meant for checking the tickets and to find out the ticketless passengers. As per Ext.B1 he has got ample power to impose fine against ticketless passengers. If the inspector found the complainants as ticketless passengers what is prevented him from taking action against the complainants? As a duty conscious officer it is his duty to proceed against the passengers who found as ticketless as per law. He has got ample power to impose fine against these passengers. Non-imposing of fine against complainants as per Motor Vehicles Act shows that the inspector never detected the complainants as ticketless passengers. Therefore the complainants are not ticketless passengers as per Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Then the next issue is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Here the complainants took the tickets through the checking inspector after paying `100/- to the checking inspector for 4 tickets. The total amount for 4 tickets is `68/-. But the checking inspector has not paid the balance amount. Here when the complainants asked the balance amount the 2nd opposite party started to insult the complainants. The checking inspector has the duty to pay the balance amount to the complainant. The opposite parties have not denied either in the version or in the affidavit the non-payment of balance amount of `32/- to the complainants. The non-payment of balance amount to passengers amounts to deficiency in service.
8. Here the specific case of the complainants is that the checking inspector insulted them unnecessarily and humiliate them infront of co-passengers. Eventhough the complainants explained the delay in purchasing tickets the 2nd opposite party started to humiliate the complainants. When the complainant requested to stop the insult saying that we are teachers the 2nd opposite party again teased that “in which school you are teaching? If the teachers are cheaters like you, will the students of that school will study etc”. Here the only duty of the checking inspector is to check the tickets of the passengers. If he found any passenger as ticketless he can proceed against them as per law. He has no authority to insult or humiliate any passenger even if he found them as ticketless. Here the insult towards passengers especially lady passengers is a misbehaviour on the part of opposite parties. Now a days during travelling the insult, humiliation or atrocities against womens are increasing. Eventhough there is enough laws in our country to prevent atrocities against the women during travelling that law will not help the women at the time of travel. In this case the complainants are ladies. Atleast the officer has to consider them as lady passengers while insulting them infront of others. Moreover, all complainants are teachers and conductor very well know that the complainants are teachers. The teachers profession is a noble one and the teachers are to be honoured and not to be insulted.
9. On going through the entire facts of the case we are of the opinion that there is misbehaviour on the part of the 2nd opposite party and it amounts to deficiency in service.
In B.L.Sood V Delhi Transport Corporation (2008 (1)CPJ 23 NC) the Hon’ble national Commission decided that rough behaviour by service provider amounts to deficiency in service.
In the above case the National Commission observed that in a civilized society rough behaviour with a Senior Citizen or with any person by the employee of service provider cannot be permitted. They are expected to behave in civilized manner and with respect. The misbehaviour amounts to deficiency in service by the service provider.
10. In the present case complainants are ladies. Moreover, they are teachers. Here the misbheaviour on the part of 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants have no case that the 1st opposite party misbehaved the complainants. Hence he is exempted from the liability. As per the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission in the above cited case the misbehvaiour of the employee of the service provider amounts to deficiency in service by the service provider. Here the misbehaviour of 2nd opposite party amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of the service provider i.e. 3rd and 4th opposite parties. Here the complainants are entitled for compensation for mental agony.
11. Then the next question is who should pay the compensation? In Lucknow Development Authority V M.K.Gupta (1994 ) I Supreme Court cases 243) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if a public officer abuses his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the consequence of that is an injury to an individual an action may be maintained against such public officer.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that when the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the state the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is therefore, necessary that the commission when it is satisfied that the complainants are entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by clinching if proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the 3rd and 4th opposite parties to pay `32/- towards the balance amount and `50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `5000/-as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties can recover the above said amount from the 2nd opposite party, the checking inspector . the 1st opposite party, the duty conductor is exonerated from the liability. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Bus ticket issued by Opposite parties.
B1. Photocopy of G.O(P)No.1/2008/Tran dt. Tvm 5-1-2008.
B2.Photocopy of Memorandum No. ES 3/003057/2007 dt.23-1-2008 issued by Chairman&
Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C, Thirvuananthapuram.
B3.Photocopy of Way Bill dt.23-12-2011
B3(a) Photocopy of ticket wise details dt.23-12-2011
B4. Photocopy of Service Inspection Report.
B4(a) Photocopy of Inspector report.
B5.Photocopy Fare Stage stops, request stops & Fare.
B6. Photocopy of relevant pages of KSRTC Mannual.
B7. Photocopy of ID card of K.F.Chacko Inspector.
PW1.Aruna.N
DW1.Binukumar.T
DW2.Chacko.K.F.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
