DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR.
C.C Case No. 08 of 2020
Arbinda Behera,aged about 50 years,
S/O-Late Natabara Behera,At-Back side of mining School,
Po-Keonjhar,P.s-town keonjhar
Dist-Keonjhar…………………………………………………….………………………….Complainant
Versus
1.DTM-OSRTC,Keonjhar
2.CMD-OSRTC,BBSR,KHURDA
3.G.M-OSRTC,BBSR,KHURDA
4.CHAMPUA-CUTTACK,BUS CONDUCTOR-MONAJ KU SAHU.
DRIVER-AJAY KU DAS……………………………………………………..……………..Opp Parties.
Present:
Biranchi Narayan Patra, President
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das, Member
Advocate for complainant- Self
Advocate for Op1, Op2 & Op3,Op4 - Sri Satyananda Das & associates
Date of Filing - 03.03.2020 Date of Order- 30.07.2022
B.B Das (Member)
The complainants case, in brief, is that on dt.21.01.2020 the complainant was travelling in OSRTC Bus bearing Regd. No- OD 02-AQ-4804 from Keonjhar to Jhumpura. But the said bus was moved in bye-pass road of Jhumpura instead of bus route, as a result of which the complainant could not reach at Jhumpura market place in time . He got down on the bye-pass road in dark and subsequently reached at Jhumura market . Such acts of the O.Ps caused him mental agony and harassment.
The O.Ps entered in appearance in this case and submitted their version denying the allegations of complainant .The said bus was plying on the route as per permit granted by Govt of Odisha . On the alleged date the Bus reached at Jhumpura market in right time but the Complainant did not make payment the Bus fare in spite of repeated requests of the Conductor, rather threatened to take away his service .
The complainant files the Bus ticket showing his travelling from Keonjhar to Jhumpura . But the sole contention of O.P is that the complainant did not make payment his fare in spite of repeated requests of conductor . Onus is on the complainant to prove granting of ticket by conductors on the alleged date through independent witness including himself. Complainant could not produce sufficient evidence to prove that deficiency of service created by Ops. Simply filing of ticket creates doubt that it belongs to him or not or manages to procure from other. However it bears no merit in this case.
At the outset it is to be seen that under the nature and circumstances of the case , whether he comes under the purview of consumer protection Act as Consumer or not, But in this case the complainant is not a consumer because he could not established himself as a consumer due lack of evidence. The deficiency of service to the Complainant is not rendered in this case, primarily for this reason.
Hence it is ordered that the complainant case bears no merit and as such, dismissed .Under the above circumstance there is no cost.
Pronounced in open commission on this day of 30th July, 2022 under the seal and signature of commission.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 30th July, 2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
(Sri B.B Das )
(Member)
DCDRC,Keonjhar