Date of filing : 30-10-2012
Date of order :20-01-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.290/12
Dated this, the 20th
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Kesavan.M.S. : Complainant
Chandera, Padinharakkarayil,
Maniyat Village & Post. 671310
Kasaragod.Dt.
(In Person)
1. K.C.Usha, RAKESH MOTORS, : Opposite parties
“Usha Kiran”, Thottada.Po. Kannur Dist.
(Adv.A.K.V.Balakrishnan, Hosdurg)
2. Abdul Salam.P. S/o. Shaduli,
Po.Peruvalath Paramb, Irikkur.Via,
Thaliparamba, Kannur.Dt.
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant along with his daughter Ahkhansha boarded a private bus namely “Rakesh” from the place called Chandera to reach Payyanur at 7.20 AM and after two stops, the conductor the 2ndndndnd
2. On receipt of notice from this Forum opposite party No.1 entered in appearance and filed her version. According to opposite party No.1 she is the owner of the bus and on 9-9-2012, the date of incident one Abdul Salam was the conductor and on receipt of this notice the complainant asked the conductor about the incident and the conductor denied such an incident and the opposite party No.1 furnished the name and address of the conductor and further stated in her version that while appointing a person as conductor she is advising him that he should behave in a decent manner and in this case she is ready to terminate him from his job as conductor if the Forum found any deficiency in service in his part and further she is not a necessary party to this proceeding and her 25 years practice as a bus owner there was no single complaint against her and her employees of the bus and the complaint filed against her may be closed.
3. Subsequently the conductor was impleaded as 2ndnd
4. Considering the facts on record and on perusal of the documents the following issues raised for consideration.
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief as cost and compensation?
5. Here the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A3 marked and the counsel for opposite party No.1 cross-examined the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has not adduced any oral evidence and marked Exts B1 to B3 documents.
6. Heard both sides and documents perused. The specific case of the complainant is that the 2ndstndnd
In B.L. Sood
7. In the present case the opposite parties has not exhibited the gazette notification showing that there is no concession on minimum charges in Super Fast Buses. Here the deficiency is on the part of 2ndststst
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.& A2 Photocopy of Tickets issued by Ops.
A3.Photocopy of Birth certificate of the complainant’s daughter.
B1.Photo copy of Gazette notification dt.6-8-2011.
B2. Photocopy of letter dt. 17-12-2012 issued by Transport Commissioners Office, Trivandrum.
B3. Photocopy of Stage Carriage Permit Bus No. KL-13-T-1677.
PW1.Kesavan.M.S.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
