Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/115/2012

Y.MOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

D. VINCENT PRABAKAR - Opp.Party(s)

M. CHIDAMBARAM

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.115/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.27/2008, dated 04.07.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Chengalpattu)

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF JULY 2015

1. Y.Mohan,

    Employee N.13062,

    Conductor,

    Metropolitan Transport Corporation                 M/s.M.Chidambaram

    (Chennai) Ltd,                                        Counsel for Appellants /Opp.parties

    Pallavan House, Anna Salai,

    Chennai 600 002.

2. The General Manager,

    Metropolitan Transport Corporation

    (Chennai) Ltd,

    Pallavan House, Anna Salai,

    Chennai 600 002.

3. The Commissioner (Transport),

    Metropolitan Transport Corporation

    (Chennai) Ltd,

    Pallavan House, Anna Salai,

    Chennai 600 002.

-vs-

Mr.D.Vincent Prabakar,

S/o. G.Devanesan,                                             M/s.V.Manisekaran

No.1 ‘C’ Block, Narayani Apartments,            Counsel for Respondent/Complainant

Ponneri 601 204,

Thiruvallur District.

          The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.27/2008, dated 04.07.2011.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.07.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.       The complainant travelled in the bus bearing Route No.521.  Bus No.TN-01-N-4979 from Broadway to Thiruporur to meet his client and the complainant is practicing an Advocate in Chennai.  As the complainant did not have exact change bus fare and gave to the conductor Rs.100/- for the purchase of the ticket for Rs.17/- as bus fare and the conductor should pay the balance amount of Rs.83/- to the complainant at the time.  But, having no change of balance amount the conductor informed the complainant to get the balance amount at Thiruporur bus stand.  But, the conductor refused to return the balance amount of Rs.83/- to the complainant and he shouted at the complainant when he demanded for the balance amount.  Further, the conductor abused the complainant / advocate in a filthy language in the presence of other passengers and intimidated the complainant by threats.  The complainant immediately contacted the time keeper against the rude behavior of the conductor and refusal of paying the balance amount to the complainant at Thiruporur bus stand.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 also did not take any effective action against the 1^st opposite party / conductor Mr.Mohan for his rude behavior and his criminal threat at the Thiruporur bus stand.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 committed deficiency  in service in refusing the balance amount of Rs.83/- to the complainant  and for  the complicity  of the  1^st opposite party for the criminal  intimidation and his refusal to return the balance amount.  Hence a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming the above reliefs.

3.       The 2^nd opposite party alone appeared before the District Forum and denied the allegation in their written version stating that there is no balance amount to be paid for the ticket purchased as claimed by the complainant, the complainant filed a false complaint.

4.       The opposite parties 1 and 3 were failed to appear before the District Forum even after notice and thereby there were set exparte on 27.6.2008.

5.       On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to refund the balance amount of Rs.83/- to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

6.       Aggrieved by the impugned order under all the opposite parties come forward with this appeal contended that the District forum failed to consider the appellants contentions and before giving reply to the legal notice the complainant filed the complaint and the complainant failed to produce the ticket with endorsement for the balance amount to be paid by the conductor and thereby the conductor refused to pay the amount.  Since the order being passed against the opposite parties 1 and 3 being exparte and thereby the District Forum order is to be set aside.

7.       We have heard both sides arguments and carefully perused the materials in this regard.  It is not in dispute that the complainant had travelled in the bus in which the 1^st opposite party was conductor who had issued the ticket for Rs.17/- as per Ex.A2 from Broadway to Tiruporur for which the complainant alleged that he had tendered Rs.100/- for which balance of Rs.83/- had to be paid by the conductor which was promised to be paid while getting down at Tiruporur and when the same was demanded there was quarrel between the conductor/1^st opposite party and the complainant.  As the 1^st opposite party said to have been misbehaved and uttered unwarranted words and caused unnecessary flutter and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.83/- which made the complainant who is being a practicing advocate for which against the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties initiated action as per Ex.A4, A5 and A6.  Under Ex.A6 it was informed that the 1^st opposite party was temporarily suspended after an enquiry in which the complainant participated at the request of the 3^rd opposite party under letter Ex.A3 and A4 reply to the complainant and thereby it is clear that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the 1^st opposite party in issuing ticket to the passenger in which the complainant  was harassed and intimidated for the same the District Forum observed in its order at page 4 of the order  in the following paragraphs it is stated

          “That being the position, the belated denial of the 2^nd opposite party for the amount of Rs.83/- in question in para 5 of the version is untenable one.  Apart from that, the 1^st opposite party Mr.Mohan never appeared in this case.  Nor did he choose to represent his case by way of filing version as to the balance amount of Rs.83/- and his criminal intimidation in this case.

          If there was no such incident having taken place at the bus stop Thiruporur with regard to the demand of Rs.83/-, the 1^st opposite party Mr.Mohan ought to have appeared and put forth his true story in this matter.

          So, in the absence of such contra positive evidence from the opposite parties 1 to 3, the case of the complainant against the 1^st opposite party Mr.Mohan for his criminal intimidation and his refusal to pay the balance amount of Rs.83/- could not be discarded in this case.

          As stated above, the mere slogan as “Tender Exact Fare” written the inside the bus itself cannot be construed as an order but, it can be treated as only awareness for the payment on exact fare.  So, under the guise of such slogan the opposite parties 1 to 3 could not be allowed to be wriggled out from the criminal acts or deficiency in service in this case.”

Further for the same occurrence when the behavior of the 1^st opposite party was questioned by one Umamaheswari, who was also a woman lawyer travelled in the same bus against her also the 1^st opposite party said to have misbehaved by uttering filthy language for which she had given a complaint before the police as per FIR under Ex.A7 would clearly reveals that there was rude behavior by the opposite party when the 1^st opposite party failed to file any proof affidavit regarding the occurrence and also failed to appear before the District Forum to depend the case, but now come forward with the appeal along with the opposite parties 2 and 3.  In those circumstances we are of the view that there is no need for any interference with the findings of the District Forum in this regard and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.  Further in view of the facts and circumstances of the case since because of the 1^st opposite party is the employee of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were made liable vicariously,   we are inclined to direct the opposite parties 2 and 3 to recover the award amount of Rs.10,083/- from the 1^st opposite party’s salary after making payment to the complainant by the opposite parties.   Accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.27/2008, dated 04.07.2011 with the direction to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to recover the share amount of the award payable by them from the 1^st opposite party’s salary after making the payment of award amount to the complainant.

          No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                    A.K.ANNAMALAI

    MEMBER                                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES/NO

VL/D;/PJM/CONSUMER