Date of filing : 19-09-2013
Date of order : 31-01-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.218/2013
Dated this, the 31st day of January 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
A.Muralidharan, Kizhakkea Veetil, : Complainant
Chandragiri, Kalanad, Kasaragod. 671317
(In Person)
1 District Transport Officer, : Opposite parties
K.S.R.T.C, Kasaragod Depot.
2 Transport Commissioner, Kerala Government.
3 Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that on 13-08-2013 when the complainant was waiting for a KSRTC Bus which scheduled to pass through Kasaragod –Chembarikka route and its return trips were cancelled. Because of this he could not accompany his friend Jayaram to Derlakatta Dental Hospital and his friend went to this hospital alone. Consequently he suffered great mental agony and hence this complaint for his sufferings due to the deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties appeared and vehemently contested the matter by Sri.K.V.Prabhakaran, who filed version stating that all the allegations against the opposite parties are not true and this complainant is not a consumer since he was not a passenger in the KSRTC bus. Opposite parties further alleged that there is lot of private buses are plying on the route Kanhangad-Chembarikka route and allegation of cancellation was of trip was denied by the opposite parties. Opposite parties specifically contended that KSRTC operated duty schedule No.68 in full and its fifth trip is08.55 hrs Kasaragod-Chembarika and the return trip is at 9.10 alleged trip of Kasaragod via Chandragiri with vehicle No.RRC-300 was operated by crew K Mohanan as driver and K.Jayarajan as conductor. Hence this complainant concocted a false story to tarnish this image of opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and opposite parties was examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1 subject to objection from this complainant.
Points for consideration are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so ,what is the relief and cost?
4. Points 1 & 2 : On scrutiny of the documents and also by evaluating the evidence of PW1 and DW1 in the above case it is seen that the main contention raised by the opposite parties were whether the complainant is a consumer or not? Eventhough the complainant has not boarded the bus or not travelled in the bus he can be considered as a potential consumer since only due to the cancellation of the KSRTC bus he couldn’t travelled in that bus. Moreover he used to travel in this particular bus regularly since the same in passing through his route. Therefore while answering this question, forum clearly finds that the above matter can be entertained by us since he is a consumer.
5. As per the evidence of PW1 he was intended to travel in the KSRTC bus schedule No.68 but the same was cancelled on 13-08-2013 without any prior information which ought to have passed through Kasaragod Chembarika and its return trip. Because of the cancellation of the above bus the complainant could not accompany his friend Jayaraman to Dherlakatta Dental Hospital and his friend went to hospital alone. Consequently he suffered great mental agony since the complainant’s friend was not having any acquintency with the above hospital. The opposite parties herein filed a detailed version by denying all the allegations very seriously and they had a specific case that there was no such incident at all. They specifically contended that the bus was not cancelled in the particular route and in order to substantiate it they produced the way bill of the particular route with journey bill of duty No.68, with regard to the Kasaragod- Kanhangad (via) Chandragiri and its return trip. The document was marked as Ext.B1 subject to the objection as concocted one. From the opposite parties side duty conductor of bus schedule No.68 05.15 hrs Kasaragod Kanhangad via Chandragiri on 13-08-2013 was examined as DW1. Eventhough while cross-examining the DW1 he had stated that the bus schedule used to be fixed as per ‘way bill’. In case of any changes or cancellation of bus occurs, the same will be mentioned in the way bill as special instruction. The opposite parties also produced two more documents such as attested true copy of duty number 68, 05.15 hrs Kasaragod Kanhangad by DTO, KSRTC Kasaragod and approved by KSRTC Thiruvananthapuram, true copy of the PIO No. G2 749/13 which is the information received from the Kasaragod Municipality about the information whether the complainant was on duty on 13-08-2013. And it is to be noted that the way bill as well as the copy of duty No.68 are nothing but the documents of the opposite parties. There is every possibility of fabricating or concocting such documents if at all the department wanted to save their face. It is known to everybody that the cancellation of the KSRTC buses are now a days very common and we are not expected that every common man is spared from victimizing the same by waiting for a bus for hours and hours. There will not be any prior information or alternative arrangements for the cancellation of bus trips. It is up to the KSRTC to decide on such subjects. The common man always used to be silent in such circumstances and curse themselves for their inconvenience caused to him in each particular time of their bitter experiences. The forum really appreciate the complainant who is especially being an employee spent his time to question the unquestionable issues of cancellation of trips according to the whims and fancies of KSRTC who are least to bothered about the inconvenience caused to the general public or adding revenue to the government exchequer. The Forum further observes that sudden cancellation of trip results in huge loss to the Corporation itself which is originally formed for the benefit of the public. Eventhough the opposite parties produced the documents from information officer of Kasaragod Municipality for proving the falsity of the allegation levelled by the complainant, while examining him he has categorically stated before the Forum that he was present in the office and he was a bit late while reaching office. It is highly pertinent to note that the complainant herein produced a document which is received as per the right to information act 2005 about the cancellation of the alleged bus route of Chembarika –Kanhangad. As per the document No.2963/13 issued by State Public Information officer, KSRTC Kasaragod clearly stated as answer to the question No.3 that particular trip was modified since there was no income for the KSRTC from that route. It further clarified that the same route will be rescheduled only on the basis of the report that the above route is beneficial for KSRTC. It clearly substantiate the case of the complainant herein without any clarification or doubt. Moreover, there is no necessity at all from the side of the complainant to have a hostile attitude towards KSRTC and to grab money from them by initiating a false proceedings against the opposite parties and we further directs the opposite parties that to stop these type of practices such as of sudden cancellation of the trip which causes inconvenience to the public in future except on unavoidable circumstances. Therefore forum holds the opinion that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
B1.KSRTC –Way Bill
PW1.Muralidharan.A.
DW1. Jayarajan.K.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
