BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sarbans Kaur Sidhu, HAS (Retd.) w/o Sh.Gurinderjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate, 18, Lansing SQ Brampton, Ontario, L6ZIE6, Canada at presently living in H.No.1049, Sector 13, HBC, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                                                        …..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

Incharge, Business Office of M/s Indo Canadian Transport in Chandigarh No.1064-65, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                                        ……Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.P.D.GOEL                             PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL           MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.I.P.Atre, Counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Satwant Singh, Incharge, O/O OP in person.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

            Briefly stated, the complainant’s husband purchased two tickets of OP Transport on 23.10.2011, through internet, for $50.00 for their journey from New Delhi to Pipli (Kurukshetra) during the intervening night of 26^th & 27^th Oct., 2011. On reaching New Delhi, employees of OP Transport checked the hardcopy of e-mail booking of complainant & her husband.

            It is averred that the bus of the OP, which arrived there to take them to their destination, was not having any supervisor nor there was any sitting arrangement and all seats were occupied. As such, they waited for another bus of OP whereupon a Van arrived to take them as well as other passengers.  However, there was no helper, light & air conditioner in the Van, nor any snacks were served. It is also averred that during the said journey, the officials of OP again demand hard copy of booking or payment receipt from the complainant.  But the husband of complainant could not trace the same, as such OP Official charged Rs.1700/- from the complainant for the said journey. The said van ultimately dropped the complainant and her husband at Pipli G.T.Road at about 6.00 AM. Alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service, the present complaint has been instituted.

2]          OP filed reply pleading therein that seat numbers were allotted to all passengers who booked their tickets with OP Transport.  It is also pleaded that since the complainant herself failed to show the copy of the tickets, therefore, Rs.1700/- were charged from her, but on verifying the tickets on the internet, the said amount of Rs.1700/- was refunded to her at her residence.  It is denied that there was no helper in the Bus. It is stated that the bus was having proper lights, air conditioner as well as well furnished seats. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations of the complainant, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3]          Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]          We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and Incharge of OP in person and have also perused the record. 

5]          The ld.Counsel for the complainant contended that the main grouse of the complainant is that inspite of her having booked two tickets of OP Transport through Online, the OP charged Rs.1700/- for the same journey.  The complainant also alleged that the OP Transport did not provide proper facilities of sitting etc. as promised by them.

6]          On the other hand, Sh.Satwant Singh, Incharge of OP Transport argued that the complainant herself failed to show the hardcopy of the tickets and also failed to disclose the seat numbers & bus number etc., as such Rs.1700/- were charged from her for two tickets.  He also argued that later on after verifying the said fact on internet, the staff of OP personally visited the residence of complainant and returned the amount of Rs.1700/-. It is also argued that proper light & air conditioner system was working properly; there was a Helper in the Bus, besides well furnished seats. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of OP.   

7]          We find merit in the contentions of Sh.Satwant Singh, Incharge of OP Transport.  The amount, which was wrongly charged from the complainant had already been refunded by the OP vide Ann.A-4.  Moreover, the complainant herself admitted in her complaint that her husband could not find hardcopy of the Tickets. If the complainant herself failed to show hardcopy of the tickets to the OP, it was her fault.  More so, when the amount had already been refunded, no deficiency is attributable towards OP.

8]          Furthermore, the complainant has misused the process of law, by filing similar complaints on the same cause of action, before similar redressal agencies at the same time i.e. before this Forum at Chandigarh and District Forum, Kurukshetra, as is clear from Ann.-1 placed on record by the OPs.  Such act of the complainant is bad in the eyes of law.

9]          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP.  The complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

            Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.