O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.60,000/- for mental agony; Rs.6,000/- towards court expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards other expenses.
2. In brief the complaint averments are these:
The complainant on 01-07-11 reserved a ticket for his journey on 02-07-11 from Piduguralla to ECIL (Hyderabad) in the bus proceeding from GNT to NRMT vide service No.4212. The said bus reaches Piduguralla after midnight at about 1.00 a.m. The complainant contacted APSRTC on phone, who informed that the bus reaches Piduguralla on the intervening night of 02/03-07-11 at about 1.00 a.m. The complainant along with his relatives waited at the bus point on the intervening night of 02/03/-07-11 from 00.30 hours to 00.40 hours. The bus vide service No.4212 stopped at Andhra Bank Centre instead of at Island Centre. The complainant reached the bus with the help of his friend on motor bike. The driver and conductor of the said service informed that his ticket did not find place in the chart and asked him to step down the bus. Due to emergency when the complainant intend to travel in the said bus driver/conductor of the said bus informed him that tickets were not available with him and required the complainant to step down the bus. The complainant incurred loss as the driver/conductor did not issue tickets for want of tickets. The opposite party did not allow the complainant to travel in the bus inspite of purchasing ticket and it amounted to deficiency of service. The complainant incurred loss as unable to make journey on account of the deficiency of service of the opposite party.
3. The contention of the opposite parties in brief is hereunder:
The complainant obtained reservation APSRTC ticket through online in service No.4212 GNT – NRMT in Super Luxury category bus vide seat No.19 from Piduguralla to ECIL and its date of journey was 02-07-11. Time of departure was at 1.00 a.m., on 02-07-11. On 01-07-11 service No.4212 bus flied from GNT to NRMT through Piduguralla and it reached there at about 1.00 a.m. No one boarded the bus at Piduguralla stop. The complainant reached the Piduguralla bus stop on the intervening night of 02/03-07-11 instead of 01/02-07-11. On account of his sheer negligence/mistake the complainant did not board the bus on the intervening night of 01/02-07-11. Non issuing of ticket in the boarded bus service is the one man service. Moreover, the driver is not having ticket issuing machine and as such driver of the said bus was unable to issue the ticket in the bus itself. In order to cover up his mistake the complainant filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint to have wrongful gain. The complaint therefore may be dismissed.
4. Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. The complainant filed written arguments.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?
6. Admitted facts in this case are these:
1. The complainant purchased a ticket bearing No.2682675 for his journey on 02-07-11 in service No.4212 (Ex.A-1).
2. The driver/conductor of the service No.4212 did not issue ticket to the complainant on the intervening night of 02/03-07-11.
3. Driver/conductor of the service No.4212 was not provided with ticket issuing machine.
7. POINTS 1 AND 2:- The complainant booked his ticket at 11:33:09 and took printout on 11:49:35, got allotted seat No.19, the date and time of journey was mentioned as 02-07-11 at 01:00 as seen from Ex.A-1. The complainant has to board the bus at 01.00 a.m. on the intervening night of 01/02-07-11.
8. The contention of the complainant that staff of the opposite parties informing him the date of journey as 02/03-07-11 at 01:00 a.m. cannot be accepted in view of clear recitals in Ex.A-1. It is the sheer mistaken impression of the complainant in our considered opinion that the date of journey was on the intervening night of 02/03-07-11.
9. The opposite parties in their version clearly mentioned that driver/conductor of the service No.4212 was not provided with ticket issuing machine. The complainant neither summoned nor sought production of statistical return or chart of the said service on the questioned date. Unless the same was produced it cannot be found regarding availability of vacant seats. This Forum in our considered opinion cannot decide the policy of running one man services.
10. On account of his sheer mistaken impression the complainant could not make journey by purchasing Ex.A-1 ticket, for which the opposite parties cannot be blamed. Under those circumstances, we feel that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. For the discussion made supra, we answer these points against the complainant.
11. POINT No.3:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 14th day of May, 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 |
02-07-11 |
Copy of E-ticket/reservation voucher |
A2 |
20-07-11 |
Copy of letter addressed by OP2 to OP1 |
For opposite parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
