KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

   APPEAL  NO: 1198/2000

                                 JUDGMENT DATED:31..03..2010.

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Proprietor,

Shani Tours and Travels,                                     : APPELLANT

Opposite Vijaya Bank, N.H.Road,

Taliparamba.

(By Adv:Sri.Mohammed Rafiq)

            Vs.

1.         Edathil Valappil Govindan,

S/o Kunhiraman, Chuzhali,

Chuzhali amsom desom,

Taliparamba Taluk.

                                                                        : RESPONDENTS

2.         Ananda Kumar,

C/o Shani Tours and Travels,

Opp. Vijaya Bank, N.H.Road,

Taliparamba.

                                       JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:7^th April 1999 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP:512/97.  The appellant was the 1^st opposite party and respondents were the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party in the said OP:512/97 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not permitting the complainant to travel in the bus from Thaliparamba to Banglore on 8/9/1997.  On getting notice in OP:512/97 the 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service.  He contended that the bus which was scheduled for its journey from Thaliparamba to Bangalore on 8/9/97 was not available and so alternative arrangement was made by operating another bus owned by some other traveler and thereby the complainant could not be provided seat No:11 in the bus.  They also denied the incident as stated by the complainant.  It is also submitted that at last 1^st opposite party made arrangement to provide seat No:11 to the complainant and he traveled from Thaliparamba to Bangalore First opposite party is ignorant about the incident which is alleged to have been occurred at Kannur.  He also contended that the 2^nd opposite party was not his agent or an employee and he had no relationship with the 2^nd opposite party.  Thus, the 1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed against him.

2. The 2^nd opposite party remained absent and he was declared exparte before the Forum. 

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the 1^st opposite party as DW1.  Ext.P1 to P6 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby passed the impugned order dated:7/4/99 directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.250/- towards cost of the proceedings.   Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the 1^st opposite party therein.

4. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the respondents.  We heard the learned counsel for the appellant.  He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He canvassed for the position that he has no connection or relationship with the 2^nd opposite party and so the negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party cannot be taken as a ground to fasten the liability on the appellant/1^st opposite party.  It is further submitted that the appellant/1^st opposite party was only an agent who canvassed passengers for issuing tickets for their journey from Thaliparamba to Bangalore. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed against him.

5. The points that arise for consideration are:-

1.                            Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant in OP:512/97?

2.                            Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP:512/97?

6.Point Nos: 1 & 2:-

There is no dispute that the 1^st respondent/complainant booked a ticket for his journey from Thaliparamba to Bangalore and the said ticket was issued by the appellant/1^st opposite party.  The complainant had also paid the fare of Rs.170/- for securing the bus ticket for his journey from Thaliparamba to Bangalore on 8/9/97.  Admittedly the complainant was also allotted seat No:11 in the bus for which the bus ticket was issued by the appellant/1^st opposite party.  It is the definite case of the complainant that when the bus arrived at Thaliparamba, the opposite parties were not prepared to provide him seat No:11 and at the interference of the police the complainant secured the seat No:11 which was allotted in his name.  The complainant as PW1 has also deposed that when the bus reached at Kannur the 2^nd opposite party insisted the complainant to vacate the bus.  PW1 further deposed that the 2^nd opposite party had also availed the assistance of 2 other persons from Kannur and thereby the complainant was forced to alight at Kannur.  The aforesaid testimony of PW1 regarding the incident which occurred on 8/9/97 at Thaliparamba and Kannur is to be believed.  More over, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 regarding the incident which occurred in the said bus on 8/9/97 at Thaliparamba and Kannur.

7. The 1^st opposite party as DW1 pretended ignorance about the high handed and unauthorized action of the 2^nd opposite party.  The evidence of PW1 would make it clear that the 2^nd opposite party was in the said bus as an employee and he traveled in the very same bus as an employee.  It is also deposed by PW1 that when the bus reached at Kannur, the 2^nd opposite party compelled the complainant to vacate the said bus and thereby the complainant alighted at Kannur.  The case of DW1 that he has no sort of relationship with the 2^nd opposite party cannot be believed for a moment.  The circumstance would show that DW1 was pretending ignorance abut his involvement in the high handed action of the 2^nd opposite party.   It is also to be noted that even the 1^st opposite party was not willing to provide seat No:11 which was already allotted to the complainant.  It is also the admitted case that the complainant could secure the said seat only with the assistance of police.  It is only because of the insistence made by the complainant for seat No:11 annoyed opposite parties 1 and 2 and thereby they compelled the complainant to alight at Kannur.  Thus, the illegal and high handed action of the opposite parties have been  established in this case.

8. The materials on record would show that the complainant could not travel from Thaliparamba to Bangalore on 8/9/97 and he was compelled to stay in a lodging house at Thaliparamba for spending night hours.  It would also show that on the next day the complainant traveled in a KSRTC bus to Bangalore and that the complainant could not secure the job which was offered by Monisha Agencies, Bangalore.  There can be no doubt that the complainant suffered physical and mental torture at the hands of the opposite parties.  He was put to inconvenience and discomfort on account of the high handed actions of the opposite parties.  He also suffered financial loss due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus, the Forum below has rightly found the opposite parties deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  The finding of the Forum below that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is also to be upheld.

9. The Forum below awarded a compensation of Rs.60,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Considering the illegal, unauthorized and high handed actions of the opposite parties, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- ordered by the Forum below can be treated as just and reasonable.  The Forum below is also justified in awarding very reasonable cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant.  We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The present appeal deserves dismissal.  Hence we do so.  These points are answered accordingly.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated:7/4/99 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP:512/97 is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there will be no order as to cost.

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.