COMPLAINT FILED: 27-10-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 31-03-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31ST MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2502/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sundara B M<br /> No.26, 7th A Cross,<br /> (Near Vandana Nest Aprmnt) <br /> Jakkasandra<br /> Koramangala<br /> Bangalore – 560 034.<br /> <br /> Party in Person <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Divisional Controller<br /> KSRTC,<br /> SubashNagar Bus Stand<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> <br /> Advocate: S.N.Sanjeeva<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. On 19-10-2009 complainant booked a return ticket from Gonikoppalu to Bangalore from authorized booking centre of OP by name M/s.Jishnu Enterprise. The Two tickets bearing No.15250494 for seat number 18 & 19 and 15250496 for seat number 17. Class:Karnataka Sarige Trip Code:1940CNRBNG: departure time :23:05 from Gonikoppalu. The copies of the reservation tickets are produced. Complainant along with his wife and children waited at Gonikoppalu Bus Stop from 10:15 p.m. to 12 p.m. and has to catch another bus on the next day morning. Copy of that ticket dated 20-10-2009 is produced. The bus did come at 11 p.m. at the pick up point. Complainant showed his reserved tickets to the conductor. Conductor ruled out that there is any reservation and informed the complainant that he did not receive any details regarding the reservation from the concerned department and did not pick up the complainant and his family. Complainant tried to make phone calls to the numbers mentioned on the back of the ticket. No one picked up the phone for the reasons best known to them. Due to delay complainant could not attend scheduled business meetings and lost the business dealings. On 20-10-2009 complainant lodged a complaint to the Divisional Controller KSRTC, Subhash Nagar, Bangalore claiming Rs.15,000/- compensation. Copy of the letter is produced. This was the second experience to the complainant. On 16-09-2008 also complainant suffered same experience from the OP. The copy of the complaint made to OP dated 16-09-2008 is produced. There was no system to pick up passengers even after reserving a ticket at KSRTC ticket counters. There is no safety in the night time and at unknown places. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under circumstances he was advised to file this complaint against OP for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed its version mainly contending that complainant is not a consumer. Complaint is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction. The allegations are contradictory complaint is filed under misconception of law to make unlawful gain. OP admitted the issuance of 3 reserved tickets from Gonikoppalu to Bangalore on 07-10-2009 to travel on 19-10-2009. conductor of the bus refused to allow the complainant and his family to travel are not within knowledge of the OP. the said bus starts journey from Bangalore to Cannanore and returns again from Cannanore to Bangalore is a Karnataka Saarige Bus. As per Schedule on 18-10-2009 at 8.30 hrs the said bus operated from Bangalore to Cannanore and reached Cannanore on 19-10-2009. On the way to Bangalore at 23.00 hrs bus had to stop at Gonikoppalu had to pick up passengers who has reserved the ticket to travel. At 19.30 hrs said bus left Cannanore. On the said day local municipal authorities ordered for deviation of all the road users via Sultan Batteri was blocked due to bad road condition and has to pass through Kutta route. The road leading to manthavadi to Gonikoppalu was completely damaged Bus – KA 01 F 8416 moved slowly and reached Gonikoppalu by two hours later than schedule time. The copy of the trip sheet, waybill, ETM Report are produced. Complainant has not made any efforts to know the reason for delay and sought compensation of Rs.15,000/- by lodging a complaint on 20-10-2009. OP gave the reply asking the complainant to collect the tickets amount. The conditions printed on the backside of the ticket stating corporation reserve the right to change / cancel the class of service. Among other grounds OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. On behalf of OP A.N.Manjunatha, Depot-Manager, Depot-5 KSRTC, Bangalore Central Division has filed affidavit evidence and produced some documents. Heard the arguments. OP filed written arguments.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 07-10-2009 complainant booked two tickets bearing No.15240494 and 15250496 for 3 seats, 17, 18 & 19 from the OP’s authorized booking centre to travel from Gonikoppalu to Bangalore along with his wife and children. The schedule travel was on 19-10-2009. Departure at 23:05. Class Karnataka Saarige. Trip code:1940CNR BNG. The copies of the tickets are produced. <br /> <br /> 8. It is also not in dispute that on 19-10-2009 the schedule bus No.KA 01 F 8416 reached Gonikappalu stop two hours late than the schedule time.<br /> <br /> 9. The defence of the OP is that due to local Municipality order for deviation of road users and due to bad road condition the said bus bearing No.KA-01 F 8416 passed through Kutta route. Road leading to Manthavadi to Gonikoppalu was completely damaged. Hence there was delay of 2 hours to reach Gonikoppalu stop<br /> <br /> 10. OP has not produced any material to show that the Cannanore local Municipal Authority has passed an order for deviation of all the road users due to bad road condition, to prove that the local Municipal Authorities blocked the route via “SULTAN BATTERI” and vehicles were asked to deviate and pass the “KATTA” route. The defence that due to complete damage of the road the vehicles had to move slowly to avoid accidents and to ensure safe journey to its commuters; as such the bus reached Gonikoppalu bus stand by 2 hours late cannot be accepted as a satisfactory explanation for the delay in arrival of the bus. In case if the road was completely damaged and the buses plying on such road are unable to keep up the schedule timings; OP ought to have changed schedule timings, so that the passengers could have been aware of the timings thereby avoiding inconvince for waiting the buses. <br /> <br /> 11. The Principles laid down in I(1998) CPJ 65 (NC) Depot Manager, APSRTC & Others V/s District Consumer Council cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case; as per that principles if on account of congestion in the town the Corporation terminates its services at some point in the town instead of the bus station then it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service. In this case there is no question of change of terminate points. OP has not produced any documents to show that there was any such order from local Municipal Authority for deviating the route. <br /> <br /> 12. Though the bus for which the complainant had reservation not reached Gonikoppalu bus stand on time, but the complainant was unable to contact the authorities to know the reason for non arrival of the bus on time and the approximate timing of which it may likely to reach the bus stand. The phone contact numbers mentioned on the back of the reservation tickets were used by the complainant but no one attended the phone calls. The purpose of furnishing the contact numbers is to make the passengers to contact the concerned authority to know the timings of the arrival and departure of the buses. The very fact that none of the officials of OP responded to the phone calls of the complainant is a total gross negligence on the part of the OP. There is no merit in the contention of the OP that complainant has not placed any material to show that he as tried to contact on phone on that day. In the affidavit evidence the complainant has clearly stated about the said fact; there is no reason to disbelieve his sworn testimony regarding the same. <br /> <br /> 13. The documents produced by OP shows that seat No.17, 18 and 19 did not travel on that day. The complainant has suffered earlier on 16.09.2008 for non arrival of the bus; the copy of the complaint made to OP is produced. The complainant having confirmed reservation tickets was made to wait in the night from 11-00 to 12-00 p.m. with his family and children. There was no proper arrangement at the bus stop to inform the complainant the probable timings of the arrival of the bus for which he had booked the tickets. The phone calls on the numbers mentioned on the tickets are not attended by the officials of the OP. Under these circumstances we are of the view that this acts of the officials of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant could not travel on that day an account of the late arrival of the bus and further he being not informed of the probable timing of arrival. Even after receipt of the complaint OP has not made any attempts to compensate the complainant. Taking into consideration of all facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the tickets amounts along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.312/- being the cost of the tickets reserved and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of its communication of this order. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of March 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> snm<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />