Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/710/2017

Samhoti Manna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director State Transport, Haryana Roadways - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/710/2017
Date of Institution	:	12/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/10/2018

 

Samhoti Manna, Resident of House No. 3358, Sec. 15-D, Chandigarh-160015.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Director State Transport, Haryana Roadways, 2^nd Floor, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, Chandigarh.

2.     General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

3.     Deputy Transport Controller (Traffic) HQ, 2^nd Floor, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Laxman Singh, Authorized Agent of Opposite Parties.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that on 22.03.2017 the Complainant, along with her mother, travelled from Chandigarh ISBT Sector 17 to New Delhi ISBT Kashmiri Gate, by Volvo Bus No.9968 on Seat No.35 & 36, for which she spent Rs.575/- for each ticket. It has been alleged that the journey was totally uncomfortable, as the seats were in very poor condition and whenever the driver applied the brakes, they had experienced sudden jerks which were not at all expected in a comfortable luxury bus. Also, the working of the air conditioner was very minimal, due to which they were completely exhausted by the time they reached New Delhi and the mother of the Complainant also fell sick. The Complainant wrote to the Opposite Parties regarding the aforesaid issues, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that on 22.03.2017, as per report of Volvo Incharge, the seat of the Bus No.9968 were very good and comfortable and air condition was functioning properly. The letter regarding grievances written by the Complainant was found devoid of merits. It has been asserted that no other passenger on that day (22.03.2017) reported discomfort as alleged by the Complainant in the bus. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Authorized Agent of the Opposite Parties.
7.         The main allegation of the Complainant is that she had a very uncomfortable journey in the Volvo bus of the Opposite Parties and the seats were very shabby and in poor condition.
8.         Per contra, the Opposite Parties have admitted that the Complainant had travelled on 22.03.2017 in their Volvo Bus No. 9968 on Seat No.35 and 36 after taking tickets to the amount of Rs.1150/-. However, the Opposite Parties have vehemently opposed the Complaint of the Complainant.
9.         The onus to prove the alleged shortcomings squarely lies on the Complainant herself. However, there is nothing on record which could substantiate the allegations levelled by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties by way of present Complaint. It is noteworthy that the Complainant has neither annexed any photograph, copy of the Complaint book nor the Complaint is supported by any affidavit of the co-passengers supporting the version of the Complainant. In the absence of this, the bald assertions of the Complainant cannot be believed at their face value and is thus rejected. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/10/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”