CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th  day of July, 2017

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                              Date of filing:15/06/2016

                         : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER                

                  : SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/81/2016

S/o Sundaran,

Kavathuveetil, Nelliyamkunnam,

Kattussery Amsam,

Alathur Taluk, Palakkad.                                                                                     : Complainant

(Adv. M.Raveendran & M.J.Vince)                                  

                                                               Vs                                                                                    

1. District Transport Officer,

Palakkad Depot, KSRTC, Palakkad.

(Adv.P.K.Sreedharan)

2. Managing Director,

KSRTC Bhavan, Trivandrum.                                                                              

( P.K.Sreedharan )                                                                         : Opposite Parties

      3.  J.Johnson, WB N.527363,

           Conductor Bus No. RNE 898.

      4.  J.Rajan, Driver, WB N.527363,             

             Bus No.RNE 898.                                      

O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          Brief facts of the complaint. 

          The complainant is working as a temporary employee in Kanjikkode LPG Plant of HPCL.  The complainant’s working time is 10.30.hours at night.   On 06/10/2015 at 11.30.p.m, the complainant caught a KSRTC superfast bus, running between Palakkad & Kottarakkara along with his neighbours, namely Vasu and Sumesh.  The conductor asked the complainant to take a fare stage ticket upto Vadakkenchery and the complainant paid Rs.33/-(Rupees thirty three only) to the conductor who issued him a ticket bearing no:040726 .  His neighbours paid Rs.66/-(Rupees sixty six only) and were issued a ticket bearing no:040736 .  The complainant and his neighbours requested the conductor of the bus to stop the bus at Erattakulam when their bus reached there and though the conductor rang the third bell to stop the bus, without stopping at Erattakulam the bus ran.  At 00.35.hours midnight the complainant and his neighbours were alighted  from the bus at a place which was lonely and dark in Vadakkenchery.  Then from Vadakkenchery at midnight paying Rs.750/-excessive auto fare, they had to travel by auto.  Since at midnight complainant did not arrive at his house his wife and children had to suffer mental tension.  At midnight there is liability for KSRTC authorities to stop the bus at the places requested for by the passengers, the workers of the opposite parties unlawfully performed, pleaded by the complainant.  From the complainant the ticket fare was received and he was made to believe that they would deboard the complainant at the correct deboarding point, but without deboarding the complainant at the correct deboarding point opposite parties have committed deficiency in their service, according to the complainant.  He telephoned to the control room as mentioned in the ticket and as per their instructions, a complaint was given to the Vigilance Officer of KSRTC, Trivandrum and a copy of the same was given to District Transport Officer, Palakkad.  Since, on the complaint, no action was taken, the complainant sent to opposite parties 1&2 notices asking for the names of the driver and the conductor of the alleged bus.  But they did not give their names which were mentioned in the control sheet possessed by the 2^nd opposite party.  According to the complainant opposite parties committed default and did not perform their liability as per law.  Opposite parties are liable for excessive travelling expenses incurred by the complainant, for mental agony suffered by him and for sending lawyer notices by the complainant as mentioned below.      

         The complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to order the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.8,750/-(Rupees eight thousand seven hundred and fifty only) for mental agony suffered by the complainant for travelling expenses incurred by the complainant for sending notices to opposite parties and expenses for filing complaint. 

        The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed their versions.  But 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties did not file their versions.  In their version 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties contend the following.

       These opposite parties entirely deny pleas mentioned in the complaint except those specifically admitted.  Complaint does not legally sustain and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as per the complaint.

        The complainant has to prove that on 06/10/2015, he travelled by KSRTC bus.  These opposite parties deny the statements that the complainant and his neighbours on the bus reaching Erattakulam asked the conductor to stop the bus, in spite of the conductor having rung the bell the bus did not stop there, at 00.35 hours midnight the complainant was deboarded in a dark place in Vadakkanchery.  Paying excessive auto fare, the complainant had to come to his house and because of late arrival by the complainant, his wife children and mother suffered mental tension were denied by the opposite parties.  That the complainant at midnight itself complained to control room, that then complaint was given to Vigilance Officer of the KSRTC, Trivandrum, that names of conductor, driver were demanded, that they were not given and opposite parties defaulted, that for excessive travel expenses of the complainant and for mental agony, Rs.8,750/-was demanded from opposite parties have no basis and these statements are denied by these opposite parties.  Along with the complaint, no documents were produced, contended by opposite parties.  Hence according to them complaint itself is false.  Opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount mentioned in the complaint from the opposite parties.   Hence opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost.

        Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents marked as Ext A1 to A4 series.    The complainant was cross examined as PW1.  No document was produced by opposite parties. 

          The following issues are considered in this case:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 &2  

In this case the complainant on 06/10/2015 at 11.30 pm boarded a KSRTC superfast bus running between Palakkad & Kottarakkara to go to his house at Erattakulam near Alathur.  According to the complainant, although he asked the conductor to stop the bus at Erattakulam and the conductor rang the third bell to stop the bus at Erattakulam, the bus stopped only at Vadakkenchery that too at a dark place.  The complainant was asked to get down the bus at 00.35 hours midnight.  Then from Vadakkenchery at midnight paying an excessive auto fare of Rs.750/-(Rupees seven hundred fifty only) the complainant had to go to his house.  No evidence is adduced by the complaint to prove this allegation.  As per the instructions of KSRTC control room authorities, a complaint was given to the Vigilance Officer of KSRTC, Trivandrum as per Ext.A1 with a copy of that to District Transport Officder, Palakkad.  Photocopy of the tickets dated 06/10/2015 issued to the complainant and his two neighbours were marked as Ext.A4 series which indicate that the complainant and his two neighbours travelled on 06/10/2015 by KSRTC bus from Palakakd to Vadakkanchery at around 11.30 pm. 

From the documentary evidences submitted by the complainant, it is clear to us that complainant along with his neighbours has travelled on 06/10/2015 midnight in the alleged KSRTC Super Fast bus from Palakkad to Vadakkenchery.  Although, there is a standing order of KSRTC that after 10 pm, male passengers of all KSRTC bus services including their super fast services are to be permitted to alight at any stop in between as requested by them.  In this case we observe that when the alleged KSRTC super fast bus reached Erattakulam at about 12.10 am at midnight as per the request of the complainant 3^rd opposite party rang the bell to stop the bus at Erattakulam, but the 4^th opposite party did not stop the bus at Erattakulam which proves that 3^rd opposite party has performed his duty properly by ringing the bell to stop the bus at Erattakulam and hence no deficiency in service can be attributed to 3^rd opposite party; on the other hand the 4^th opposite party by not stopping the bus at Erattakulam has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.  We further observe that the complainant was asked to get down at lonely dark place at Vadakkenchery at about 12.30.am midnight which made him suffer mental difficulties and we also view that although complaints were lodged by the complainant with the Vigilance Officer of KSRTC, Trivandrum, Managing Director, KSRTC, Trivandrum and the District Transport Officer, KSRTC, Palakkad, no action on their part is seen to have been taken by them which proves deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties 1^st & 2^nd .  Since 4^th opposite party is working under opposite parties 1^st & 2^nd,  the latter has vicarious liability also on the behalf of 4^th opposite party.  Since the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence for travelling by auto from Vadakkenchery to Erattakulam during midnight on 07.10.2015, his claim for payment of  auto fare of Rs.750/- cannot be allowed.  We order the opposite parties 1^st and 2^nd to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) by way of compensation for mental agony suffered by him and his family members and Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards litigation expenses incurred by the complainant; we also order that 3^rd opposite party is discharged from liability in this case; 4^th opposite party is also ordered to be discharged from his liability for deficiency in service because 4^th opposite party is working under 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties who are employers and superior officers of 4^th opposite party and are there for vicariously liable for deficiency in service committed by the 4^th opposite party.

Order shall be executed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of the order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th  day of July 2017.

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                      Shiny. P.R

                                                                                                      President

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                            Suma. K.P                                                                                                               Member    

                                                                                                                                               Sd/-     

                                                                                       V.P.Anantha Narayanan                                                                                                  Member 

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Complaint given by the complainant to the Vigilance Officer, KSRTC,

 Thiruvananthapuram  

Ext.A2 series –copy of registered notice send to Managing Director KSRTC, Thiruvnanathapuram

                     and District Transport Officer, Palakkad, their postal receipts and

                    acknowledgement card received from them

Ext.A3 - reply given by the District Transport Officer, palakkad to the complainant’s advocate

            Mr.M.Raveendran

Ext.A4 series- Photocopies  of tickets dated 06/10/2015 issued to the complainant and his two

                    neighbours 

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Sandheep

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1500/-