Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/65/2013

Arigela Nagendrasai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Depo Manager,APSRTC - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

Date of filing      : 06-06-2013

Date of Disposal : 09-07-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                    Thursday, this the  9th day of  JULY, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M.,

                                President(FAC),

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy,B.Sc. LL.B., Member

                             

                      C.C.No. 65/2013

 

Aregella Nagendra Sai,

S/o.Late Subbaramaiah,

Age 52 years,

Advocate, D.No.24-2-1272,

R/o.Magunta Layout,

Nellore.                                                                          …  Complainant

 

                 Vs.                                                                    

The Depot Manager,

APSRTC,

Nellore-II Depot,

Nellore.                                                                       … Opposite party

   

This matter coming on 02-07-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of complainant (appeared as in person) and  Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI N.S.KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

1.    The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant reserved one bus ticket on 02-6-2013 in Super Luxury Bus bearing No.5086 from Bangalore to Nellore and travelled on the said date at about 10-30 p.m. in seat no.12 which was allotted by the opposite party (APSCRTC).  But the said seat was no lever button and also not functioning as a push button seat towards back and front and the cushion on the left hand rest also not available which caused much inconvenience to the complainant. On account of, iron rod attached to the left hand rest he was unable to place his left hand on the left side.  Immediately he requested the conductor to provide a separate seat but failed to provide seat because all seats were already filled up.  They alleged that opposite party allotted spoiled seat to him though collected super luxury amount of Rs.448/- since he failed to comply with the request is suffered back pain and mental agony throughout the night journey.    Hence the complainant seeking relief as prayed for in the complaint for deficiency of service. 

2.   On the other hand the opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations made by the complainant except that of admitting the complainant travelled in super luxury bus no.5086 on 02-6-2013 at 10-30 p.m. from Bangalore to Nellore.  The opposite party further contended that the complainant noted in the journey ticket that “for the 3^rd seat there is no push back and hand rest cushion since that are damaged”  and obtained signature of the driver namely Sk.Karimulla E.No.510498.    Hence, it is clearly indicated that Sl.No.12 was not damaged on 02-6-2013 and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any refund of fair as well as compensation.  As there was no deficiency of service on their part and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3. The points for determination would be for consideration:

1. Whether there is  deficiency of service on the part

of the opposite parties? If so, whether the complainants

are entitled reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint?

 

2. To what relief ?

 

4.   On behalf of the complainant, affidavit filed and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 and on the other hand the opposite party filed affidavit and no documents were marked.  Heard the oral arguments, on behalf of the complainant and also counsel for the opposite party.  

POINTS:

5.     The complainant came forward with the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  According to him, he booked a ticket through net for travel from Bangalore to Nellore in the bus run by the opposite party and paid the necessary charges for the journey as evidenced by ticket no.21628093, seat no.12 was allotted to the complainant.  The journey was performed on  02-06-2013.  Further according to complainant the bus in which he performed journey has the facility “Push back seat”.  The said facility is intended for performing journey by leaning back i.e., in a semi sleeping position and such a facility is available in a long distance buses run during nights.  Further according to complainant he has boarded the bus at Bangalore bus stop at 10-30 pm.  He occupied the seat when he tried to operate the facility of push back seat and the same was not functioning. Consequently, he complained about the same to the crew of the bus.  The driver of the bus also tried to operate push back seat and found the same was not functioning and the said driver of the bus certified about non-functioning of push back seat.  The complainant was put to lot of inconvenience. Hence, the complaint for payment of compensation of Rs.37,948/- for inconvenience caused to the complainant.

6.    The admitted facts are that the complainant was travelled in the bus of the opposite party by occupying seat in Super Luxury bus service No.5086 on 02-06-2013 at 10-30 p.m. from Bangalore to Nellore.  There is facility of the seats of the said bus provided with push back.  The seat No.12 allotted to the complainant was not functioning and the driver of the bus duly certified that the seat was not functioning.    Thus, it is proved beyond any doubt that push back facility of seat No.12 allotted to the complainant was not functioning on the night the complainant performed journey from Bangalore to Nellore.

7.   The APSCRTC run buses to places within the State and outside the States of Orissa, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Maharastra States.  Most of the buses run by the APSCRTC of Super Delux, Semi Luxury, Garuda services and most of the buses operated during nights having the facility push back seats which facilitate the passengers to travel during the nights in a Semi Sleeping position and further most of the passengers preferred night journey to reach their respective destinations, so that they can attend the duties on the following day.  For enjoying such facility they pay huge amounts towards bus charges, to the APSCRTC.  Having collected huge charges for facility, the APSCRTC is bound to provide to the customers for passengers.  Therefore, their duty is cast on the crew of bus to inspect the bus thoroughly and ascertain whether the A.C., push backs are in working condition or not, only after the thorough check up and making sure of the working condition of the facilities the bus has to be brought to the platform to arrange the passengers to board the bus.  In the instant case only, after the complainant boarded the bus and when he operated the push back seat facility it was found to be not functioning.  Had the crew of the bus checked the bus in the garage of workshop confer the defect could have been noticed by them and there is every possibility of setting right the defect and to make the facility of push back system to function properly.  Had the crew of the bus of the persons in-charge of the maintenance of the bus acted diligently such deficiency of service would have been avoided.

8.  To get over the latches and lapses on the part of the opposite party in rendering service the opposite party came forward with false and untenable version that seat No.12 was not in a damaged condition on 02-6-2013 and in fact 3rd seat was in damaged condition.  This contentions is blatant falsehood is clear from the allotment of seat No.12 to the claimant and not seat No.3.   Because there was malfunctioning seat No.12 the complainant brought the same to the notice of the driver who clearly certified that “this seat” means seat No.12 was not functioning properly in damaged condition which is Ex.A1. 

9.  According to the complainant on account of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party he was put to lot of inconvenience.  For that, he has claimed a compensation of Rs.37,948/- which includes bus fare, costs and mental agony.  The amount according to us appears to be on the high side and fantastic.  The complainant is said to be aged 52 years.  It is not the claim of the complainant that he was suffering from any form of ill health or infirmity.    It may be that an account of lack of facility of “push back” seat the complainant was put to some discomfort while performing journey around 400 KMs from Bangalore to Nellore.  The journey time is about 9 hours.  But the circumstances above would not entitle the claimant/complainant to claim fabulous amount of Rs.37,948/-  of compensation.  The amount claimed by the complainant appears to be out of proportion to the inconvenience or discomfort suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party.  This Forum feels that a compensation of Rs.5,000/-   would be a reasonable amount of compensate to which the complainant would be entitled.

10.   The opposite party with a view to avoid the liability to pay the compensation for deficiency in service came forward with the false contention. But, the complainant could necessarily establish that the seat no.12 was not functioning properly and therefore there is any amount of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.

11.  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service besides the costs of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only)within two months from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall carry interest @9% p.a. till payment.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the 9th day of JULY,2015.    

 

               Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

28-11-2014

:

Arigella Nagendra Sai, S/o.Late Subbaramaiah, age 52 years, Advocate, R/o.Magunta layout, Nellore.

 

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

RW1

02-9-2014

:

Sk.Shemeem,W/o.Shamshuddin, Muslim, aged about 33 years, working as  a Depot Manager, APSRTC., Nellore-II Depot, Nellore SPSR, Nellore District.

              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	-	:	Computerized copy of bus details ticket
Ex.A2	-	:	Photos of bus seats (three in nos.)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                         

• N I L -

                                                              

                                                              Id/-                  

                                                     PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Aregella Nagendra Sai,S/o.Late Subbaramaiah, Age 52 years,

Advocate, D.No.24-2-1272, R/o.Magunta Layout, Nellore.      

 

2. Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Sri M.Ujwala, Advocates, 16-3-812,

Ramamuthy Nagar, Nellore – 524 003

 

 

Date when order copies are issued: