Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

276/2011

R.Priyadharshini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Govt Express Transport Corperation - Opp.Party(s)

P.Chandramohan

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 05.05.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 09.01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

CC. NO.276/2011

TUESDAY THE 9^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

1. R. Priyadarshini,

2. R.Nishanthi,

Both are residing at

No2/347-D Ganesh Plot,

Dinakaran Steet,

P.M.D. Nagar,

Kovilambakkam,

Chennai -117.                                          .. Complainants.

 

                                      ..Vs..

The General Manager,

State Express Transport Corporation,

Thiruvallur House,

2, Pallavan Salai,

Ann Salai, Chennai 600 002.                    .. Opposite party. 

 

 

Counsel for complainants          :  M/s. B. Chandramohan.

Counsel for opposite party         :  M/s. T.Natarajan.

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay  a sum of Rs.840/- towards the cost of  the ticket and a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

 

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainants submit that they travelled in Route No.322 UD Tamil Nadu State Government Transport Corporation Bus on 27.3.2011 from Thambaram to Mannargudi, similarly on 28.3.2011 and  30.3.2011 from Mannargudi  to Chennai.   While travelling in the bus the bed bugs bite the complainants caused great inconvenience thereby the complainants lost the pleasure of travelling throughout.   The said inconvenience of bed bug bite was informed to the conductor of the bus.  Immediately the conductor poured kerosene  which caused great inconvenience resulting suffocation.    The opposite party has not maintained the transport service.    As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainants. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party corporation had failed to maintain the bus in a proper condition as a result of which the complainants had to suffer the bite of bed bug for nearly 9 hours during their travel is stoutly denied.   The conductor had poured kerosene on the seats when it was complained to him about the bed bug problem is also in correct and false.   The opposite party also state that there was no such complaint received from the complainants or from any of the passengers who travelled in the bus on 27.3.2011.    Further the opposite party also state that  they have been properly maintaining the buses and in fact there is a contract between the opposite party corporation with Central Ware Housing Corporation who has been entrusted with the job of maintaining the buses and they used to treat the buses for bed bugs and other problems and if the bus is treated with disinfectant, it will not be operated on that day.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their  evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A.6. marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4  marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The points for consideration is :

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.840/- towards the cost of  the ticket and a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5.      ON POINT :-

 

        The complainants filed written argument.  Heard the opposite party counsel.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  Admittedly the complainants travelled in Route No.322 UD belongs to the Tamil Nadu State Government Transport Corporation Bus on 27.3.2011 from Thambram to Mannargudi,  similarly on 28.3.2011 and  30.3.2011 from Mannargudi  to Chennai as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.   The complainants pleaded and contended that while travelling in the bus the bed bug bite the complainants caused great inconvenience thereby the complainant lost the pleasure of travelling throughout.   Further the contention of the complainants is that the said inconvenience of bed bug bite was informed to the conductor of the bus.  Immediately the conductor  poured kerosene  which caused great inconvenience resulting suffocation.    But  there  is  no  record.   Further the   contention  of  the  complainants   is   that  since  the   opposite party   has   not   maintained   the   transport    service   in    appropriate  manner    caused   great   inconvenience   which  amounts to  deficiency in service.   The complainants claiming a sum of Rs.840/- towards cost of the ticket and another sum of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony.

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contented that admittedly the opposite party State Transport Corporation is running transport service for the welfare of the public in a reasonable fare. The complainants were travelled in the bus.  The allegation that bites of bed bug during the journey is totally false.  The bus is duly maintained by Central Ware Housing Corporation attached to the opposite party.   The alleged inconvenience  of bed bug bite have been informed to the conductor of the bus is absolutely false and is imaginery.  If it would have been informed the said fact will be noted in the trip sheet vide Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 and it will be taken to the knowledge of the higher authority for appropriate action.  There is no such allegation raised by any of the passengers.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainants has not proved any of the inconvenience in such a manner known to law.    The compensation claimed by the complainants is imaginary and exorbitant,  there is no deficiency in service and the complainants  completed the journey by travelling in the opposite party bus not entitled any compensation.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainants are not entitled to any relief sought for in the complaint and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of January 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.

COMPLAINANT’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-  27.3.2011 - Copy of Reservation bus ticket.

Ex.A2- 28.3.2011  - Copy of Reservation bus ticket.

Ex.A3-30.3.2011   - Copy of reservation bus ticket.

Ex.A4- 15.4.2011  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A5- 18.4.2011  - Copy of Ack. Receipt.

Ex.A6- 20.5.2011  - Copy of reply.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:   

Ex.B1- 23.11.2011         - Copy of letter from conductor to Branch Manager SETC.

Ex.B2- 26.3.2011  - Copy of Trip sheet of the Corporation.

Ex.B3- 27.3.2011  - Copy of Trip sheet.

Ex.B4- 28.3.2011  - Copy of Trip sheet.

 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.