K.S.R.T.C. V/S Sri.M.Mahalingaiah - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Mandya

CC/09/119

Sri.M.Mahalingaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S.R.T.C. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.K.Prakash

02 Mar 2010

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA
D.C.Office Compound, Opp. District Court Premises, Mandya - 571 401.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/119

Sri.M.Mahalingaiah Sri.S.D.Mariswamy						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
K.S.R.T.C. K.S.R.T.C						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma2. Sri.Siddegowda

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT:1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.119/2009 Order dated this the 2nd day of March 2010 COMPLAINANT/S 1.Sri.M.Mahalingaiah S/o Madaiah, 2.Sri.S.D.Mariswamy S/o Sannaiah, Both are R/at Soonagalli Village, Kothathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.S.K.Prakash., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1.The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Mysore City Transport Division, Bannimantap, Mysore. 2.The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., KSRTC Bus Stand, Mandya. (By Sri.Boralingegowda., Advocate) Date of complaint 21.10.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.11.2009 Date of order 02.03.2010 Total Period 3 Months 11 Days Result 1.The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.17,440/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainants within two months. 2.The complaint against 2nd Opposite party is dismissed. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1.This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants against the Opposite parties for refund of Rs.52,360/- with interest at 18% and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also direct the Opposite party not to make any deduction of Rs.11,120/- from the salary of the 1st Complainant. 2.The case of the Complainants is that the Complainants along with other villagers totally 44 persons in order to visit important places in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, engaged the Opposite party Corporation bus bearing No.KA-09-F-4043 (Raja Hamsa) from 18.02.2009 to 28.01.2009, fixing the rate at Rs.34/- per KM for a total distance of 3,500 KM. The journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 a.m. on 18.01.2009. But, the bus arrived at 4.30 p.m. and thereby, the Complainants and other persons were made to wait. At the inception, they visited Manthralaya. The driver of the bus failed to fill sufficient diesel while starting the journey from Mysore. At Manthralaya since there was insufficiency of diesel, the driver without intimating the Complainants and others travelers went to Raichur and got filled diesel and then came to Manthralaya. The distance between Manthralaya to Raichur is 70 Kms. Thereby, the Complainants and other travelers were made to pay the charges for 140 Kms. Thereafter, from Manthralaya they went to Hyderabad. The drivers stopped the bus at Hyderabad and did not agree to continue the tour on the guise that the driver has no permit to move further. From 21.01.2009 to 23.01.2009 they were made to stay at Hyderabad by staying in lodge and they were made unnecessarily to spend Rs.1,00,000/- for lodging charges, food etc., and further, they were made to make payment for 700 Kms. For two days, while a bus was stopped for two days anticipating the permit. Instead of sending the permit to Hyderabad, Opposite parties sent the permit to Thirupathi and directed the driver to collect the same at Thirupathi. The distance between Hyderabad to Thirupathi is 700 Kms. In the tour Thirupathi was not covered. Thereby, the Complainants and others have been charged for extra 700 Kms. The permit was sent for making tour in Tamilnadu which was not covered in the tour. After making tour in Tamilnadu, they returned back on 29.01.2009. The Complainants have been unnecessarily charged for 1540 Kms., which comes to Rs.52,360/-. The bus was not provided with TV or Tape recorder. Though, the bus was sent Raja Hamsa, but it was an ordinary one. The Opposite party is supposed to render proper service to the tourists and the Complainants and other tourists were made to suffer mentally for their unnecessary stay at Hyderabad for two days, there is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. The Opposite party is liable to refund Rs.52,360/- which has been collected in excess for no fault of the Complainants and Opposite party is liable to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The Complainants are the key persons for arranging the tour and on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party, the Complainants have incurred wrath of other tourists. The 1st Opposite party has issued letter dated 12.09.2009 and 14.10.2009 directing the 1st Complainant to remit Rs.11,120/-. The Complainant also got issued legal notice on 22.09.2009. The Opposite parties have not complied with the notice. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3.The notices were served on the Opposite parties. The 1st Opposite party has filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, since all the travelers are not made party. Admitting, the engagement of the bus by the Complainants for tour in Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra from 18.01.2009 to 28.01.2009 at the rate of Rs.34/- per KM and to cover totally 3,500 K.Ms. and the journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 A.M. on 18.01.2009, the Complainants had agreed to all the terms and conditions regarding the rate, date and time of return of the bus. The Complainants requested the Opposite party to take the bus on hire for the tour, which includes Bangalore, Puttaparthi, Manthralaya, Mahanandi, Sreeshaila, Hyderabad, Shirdi, Ajantha, Aurangabad, Ellora, Nasik, Bombay, Poona, Phandharapur, Bijapur, Koodala Sangama, Hospet, Chitradurga, Shravanabelagola, Mandya & Mysore. The Complainant had paid Rs.1,47,000/- as hire charges. The Complainants and others have changed the tour programme when the bus was in Hyderabad and they decided to continue their tour in Tamil Nadu instead of Maharshtra and requested the Opposite parties to permit them to make the tour in Tamilnadu and to issue permit of Tamilnadu. The Opposite parties have obliged to conduct the tour in Tamilnadu instead of their earlier place in Maharashtra as per the tour list. The tour places had been changed by the Complainants and other tourists and not by the employee of the Opposite party. The Opposite parties sent the permit of Tamilnadu to Thirupathi, as per the request of the Complainants. As such, inconvenience, expenditure, if any, are all due to the act of the Complainants. Absolutely there is no deficiency in service whatsoever by the Opposite parties and they are not responsible for any cause in any manner. There is delay of two days in arrival of the bus and the Complainants are liable to pay Rs.11,120/-. In spite of several demands, the Complainants have not paid to the Opposite parties. The other averments are denied. The hire agreement entered into at Mysore and actual journey of the bus started from Mysore and ended at Mysore. Hence, there is no cause of action and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount. Though, the legal notice was issued to the Complainants, there is no need to send reply as it is a false and baseless notice. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4.The 2nd Opposite party has filed version contending that hire agreement referred in the complaint has been entered into at Mysore and actual journey of the bus started from Mysore and ended at Mysore. There is no part of 2nd Opposite party in the above said transaction. The Complainants have unnecessarily dragged 2nd Opposite party as a party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of party with costs. 5.During trial, the 1st & 2nd Complainants are examined and produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.13. On behalf of the Opposite parties 3 witnesses are examined as R.W.1 to 3 and they have produced documents Ex.R.1 to R.15. 6.We have heard both the sides. 7.Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1.Whether the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants? 2.Whether the Complainants are entitled to refund of Rs.52,360/- with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for a direction not to make any deduction of Rs.11,120/- out of the salary of the 1st Complainant? 8.Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9.POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainants and other 42 villagers from Soonagalli Village, hired the bus from 1st Opposite party at Mysore for a tour in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra from 18.01.2009 to 28.01.2009 as per tour chart and the journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 A.M. and the fair was fixed at Rs.34/- per KM and the total distance to be covered in the said tour was 3,500 K.M. and Ex.R.1 is the application for the said purpose by 1st Opposite party and Ex.C.2 is a letter undertaking to pay inter state permit charges and other charges and Ex.R.13 is the list of passengers and as per Ex.R.1, 1st Complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Admittedly, the tour was started on 18.01.2009 and the tour ended on 29.01.2009. It is also admitted fact that the tour was made from Mandya to Puttaparthi and then to Manthralaya and then to Hyderabad and instead of tour programme in Maharashtra State, as furnished to the 1st Opposite party, the tour was conducted in Tamilnadu. 10.The grievance of the Complainants is that 1) the journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 a.m. on 18.01.2009, but the bus arrived at 4.30 p.m. to Mandya where the tourists were to board the bus and the tourists were made to suffer and wait and lost the opportunity to visit the tour places on the way to Puttabarti. (2) without the knowledge of the Complainants and other tourists, the driver took the bus from Manthralaya to Raichur, which is at a distance of 70 kms. to get the diesel and they were made to pay extra charges for 140 Kms. (3) The Complainants were made to stay at Hyderabad from 21.01.2009 to 23.01.2009 in the lodge spending Rs.1,00,000/- towards lodging charges, food etc., and they were made to make payment for 700 Kms. for two days, though the bus was stopped for no fault of them and further, instead of sending the permit to Hyderabad, the 1st Opposite party sent the permit to Thirupathi which is not covered under the tour programme and the Complainants have been charged for extra 700 kms. So, according to the Complainants unnecessarily, they have been charged extra for 1540 kms. which comes to Rs.52,360 and they were made to sped Rs.1,00,000/- unnecessarily for stay at Hyderabad for two days. 11.But, the defence of the 1st Opposite party is that the Complainants and other travelers changed the tour programme when the bus was in Hyderabad and they decided to continue the tour to Tamilnadu instead of Maharashtra, they are not responsible for the change of tour places, the tour places had been changed by the Complainants and other tourists and not by any employee of the Opposite parties. At the request of the Complainants, the Opposite party sent the permit of Tamilnadu to Thirupathi and they are not responsible for any cause in any manner. 12.With regard to the delay of arrival of the bus to Mandya at 4.30 p.m. instead of 4.30 a.m. on 18.01.2009, the 1st Opposite party has simply denied the averment, there is no explanation for the same. But, in the evidence, 1st Opposite party tried to contend by examining R.W.1 to 3, wherein R.W.1 & 2 have deposed that the bus started at 4.30 a.m. from the depot and on the way near Siddalingapura, the pump of the bus failed and bus was stopped and informed the same to the depot and Technical persons came and the pump was changed in the afternoon and then they came to Soonaganahalli near Mandya and picked up the tourists. According to the R.W.3, that on 18.01.2009 they sent one Mechanic Sri.U.K.Mahadevu, on the information given by the drivers about the problem of the bus given on hire to the Complainants and Mahadevu informed that there is problem in fuel injector and they had to replace the fuel injector at 3.30 p.m. and completed the repairs and handed over to the drivers to proceed for tour and according to the R.W.3, this problem is very rear and mechanical problem while the bus was moving. R.W.3 has admitted the document of checking the bus by the mechanics before handing over to the bus to the drivers for the tour purposes is not produced. It is expected by KSRTC Authorities before handing over the bus to the driver for tour purpose for more than 10 days to see the parts are in order and the bus is in good condition and the bus should be a recent one manufactured. There is no document of the year on which bus in question was manufactured, though it is a Raja Hamsa. Even though, the log sheet Ex.R.5 is produced, but it is not signed by the drivers R.W.1 & 2. According to them, log sheet is prepared in the office. But, according to the 1st Opposite party, the drivers have prepared this log sheet. In Ex.R.5, the bus left the depot at 6.30 a.m. But, it is mentioned as 4.30 a.m. and at 3.30 p.m. the bus left the place. It is wonder, they need 10 ½ hours for repairing the problem of the bus. The Complainants and other tourists were made to wait near Mandya from the morning till the evening and they lost the opportunity of visiting the places on the way from Mandya to Puttbarthi. Even though, the details of the tourist places on the way from Mandya to Puttbarthi are not mentioned, but main tourist places will be mentioned in tour chart. Therefore, the Complainants and other tourists for no fault of them were put to hardship and mental agony and lost the opportunity of seeing tourist places on the way from Mandya to Puttbarthi, though, they were made to pay the charges for same distance, because according to the evidence of P.W.1, they had to reach Puttbarthi at 10.00 a.m., but they reached Puttbarthi at 9.30 p.m. Under these circumstances, naturally the Complainants and other tourists are put to mental agony and inconvenience simply traveling from Mandya to Puttbarthi without seeing anything. 13. The second grievance of the Complainants is that without permission of the Complainants and other tourists, the driver took the bus from Manthralaya to Raichur to get the diesel filling, covering distance of totally 140 kms. and they were burdened with charges. According to them, the driver of the bus failed to fill sufficient fuel while starting the journey from Mysore. There was insufficiency of diesel at Manthralaya. The 1st Opposite party has simply denied the said allegations without giving any explanation. But, in the evidence through the drivers tried to put up a theory that the tourists insisted upon them to take the bus to see Panchamuki Temple and with their notice, the bus was taken to Raichur to get the diesel. 14.It is expected and reasonable that the Opposite party should get the fuel filled up sufficiently for tour purpose at the places on the way to tourist places. Admittedly, this Panchamuki is not covered under the tour programme and even Raichur is not covered and there was no necessity to go to Raichur. In the log sheet Ex.R.5 there is no mention of bus going to Raichur from Manthralaya. The 1st & 2nd Complainants have denied for having visited Panchamuku Temple, which is on the way from Manthralaya to Raichur. So, the evidence of the R.W.1 & R.W.2 about visiting Panchamuki and taking the bus to Raichur to get the fuel with the knowledge of the Complainants cannot be accepted at all, because there is no pleading to that effect at all. Therefore, the Complainants were burdened with 140 kms. and hence, there is some deficiency on the part of 1st Opposite party. 15.The another grievance of the Complainants is that the driver stopped the bus at Hyderabad and did not agree to continue the tour on the guise, the driver has no permit to move further and from 21.01.2009 to 23.01.2009 they were made to stay at Hyderabad spending Rs.1,00,000/- for lodging charges and burdened with 700 km. without visiting any place. Now, if we analyse the evidence available on record, it cannot be accepted that there was no permit to go to Maharashtra from Hyderabad, because the original tour programme was from Hyderabad to Shirdi, Ajantha, Aurangabad, Ellora, Nasik, Bombay, Poona, Pandarapura, Bijapura, Koodala Sangama, Hospet, Chithradurga, Sravanabelagola, Mandya & Mysore. In fact, the Complainants have produced Ex.C.10 the permit for the said tour. So, under these circumstances, the evidence of their drivers that the tour programme could not be continued in Maharashtra and other places on account of border dispute agitation and at the request of the Complainants through phone, the 1st Opposite party obtained the tour permit to tour in Tamilnadu as per Ex.R.4 is to be accepted Admittedly, the tour permit was sent to Thirupathi, where the drivers of RW.1 & 2 obtained the same and the tour was continued from Hyderabad to Thirupathi and then Tamilnadu. There is delay in obtaining the permit, because they informed the same on 21.01.2009 night, but the permit was sent on 23rd January 2009. The evidence of 1st Complainants discloses that on the night 21.01.2009 they reached Hyderabad and so, thereafter intimation through phone was sent to the 1st Opposite party Office and they have moved for the permit and obtained the permit on 23.01.2009 as per Ex.R.4. Naturally to obtain the permit, the RTO Office takes time and the permit was sent to Thirupathi instead of Hyderabad on the availability of conveyance. So, the Complainants were to stay at Hyderabad without visiting any places on account of the reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite parties or the Complainants and now, the 1st Opposite party has charged for two days for 700 kms. According to the witnesses, R.W.1 & 2 on behalf of the 1st Opposite party, the Complainants used the bus at Hyderabad visiting the tourists places at Hyderabad like Ramoji Rao Film City and other places on 22nd and 23rd of January 2009. But, the drivers of the bus as per Ex.R.9 have stated that on 22nd & 23rd of January 2009 the bus did not move at all. So, under these circumstances, burdening the Complainants for the charges for 700 kms. for stay at Hyderabad is unreasonable and not justified. The say of the Complainants that they are burdened with expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- for stay at Hyderabad in lodges with food cannot be accepted, because they have to bear expenses for the stay, because the Opposite party is not responsible for the same. As per the evidence of the drivers, the Complainants and villagers had taken a cook along with materials and used to prepare the food on the way. 16.So, totally according to the Complainants, excess fare of Rs.52,360/- has been charged. According to the 1st Opposite party for the tour distance, the Complainants still due of Rs.11,120/- and the notice has been issued by 1st Opposite party to 1st Complainant, as per Ex.R.11 and served on the 1st Complainant as per Ex.R.11(a) and for this, the 1st Complainant has requested as per the letter Ex.R.8 to reduce the kms. and thereafter, the Complainants got issued a legal notice Ex.C.1. 17.The evidence available on record clearly established that the Complainants were unnecessarily burdened with 140 + 700 kms. and at the rate of Rs.34/-, the cost comes to Rs.28,560/-. According to the 1st Opposite party, the Complainants still due of Rs.11,120/-. So, deducting this amount of Rs.11,120/- claimed by the 1st Opposite party, the Complainants are burdened with extra Rs.17,440/- and the 1st Opposite party is liable to refund the same. Further, for the inconvenience for the first day in starting the tour programme due to late arrival of the bus to Mandya from Mysore, the 1st Opposite party is responsible. For the reasons stated above and thus, Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 18.The 1st Opposite party has contended that the tour agreement has taken place at Mysore and the bus started from Mysore and ended at Mysore and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction and further, all the tourists are not parties to the Complainant and complaint is not maintainable. 19.With regard to the jurisdiction of this Forum, though the agreement for the tour programme was entered into at Mysore, but actually the tour had to start from Mandya where the tourists had to board the bus at Mandya as per the agreement and also evidence of the drivers and even the tourists had ended the tour programme at Mandya and thereafter, the bus reached to Mysore. Further, KSRTC has a Branch at Mandya and therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. With regard to the question of all tourists not made a party in this complaint, as per Section 2(1)(b), the Complainant means one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. The evidence discloses that these two Complainants arranged the tour programme for the villagers and entered into contract with 1st Opposite party for tour programme and therefore, these two Complainants on behalf of the other tourists can maintain the complaint and therefore, the complaint is maintainable by the present Complainants. 20.It cannot be said that 2nd Opposite party is unnecessarily made a party to this complaint. Though the transaction took place between the Complainants and 1st Opposite party, but admittedly 2nd Opposite party is also at branch of the KSRTC and though no relief is claimed against the 2nd Opposite party, but the complaint cannot be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. 21.In view of the above reasons, it is proved by the Complainants that the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not sending the well condition bus in time and charging for the extra kilometers for no fault of the Complainants and in the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER 1.The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.17,440/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainants within two months. 2.The complaint against 2nd Opposite party is dismissed. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 2nd day of March 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)

BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT:1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.119/2009 Order dated this the 2nd day of March 2010 COMPLAINANT/S 1.Sri.M.Mahalingaiah S/o Madaiah, 2.Sri.S.D.Mariswamy S/o Sannaiah, Both are R/at Soonagalli Village, Kothathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.S.K.Prakash., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1.The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Mysore City Transport Division, Bannimantap, Mysore. 2.The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., KSRTC Bus Stand, Mandya. (By Sri.Boralingegowda., Advocate) Date of complaint 21.10.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.11.2009 Date of order 02.03.2010 Total Period 3 Months 11 Days Result 1.The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.17,440/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainants within two months. 2.The complaint against 2nd Opposite party is dismissed. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1.This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants against the Opposite parties for refund of Rs.52,360/- with interest at 18% and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also direct the Opposite party not to make any deduction of Rs.11,120/- from the salary of the 1st Complainant. 2.The case of the Complainants is that the Complainants along with other villagers totally 44 persons in order to visit important places in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, engaged the Opposite party Corporation bus bearing No.KA-09-F-4043 (Raja Hamsa) from 18.02.2009 to 28.01.2009, fixing the rate at Rs.34/- per KM for a total distance of 3,500 KM. The journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 a.m. on 18.01.2009. But, the bus arrived at 4.30 p.m. and thereby, the Complainants and other persons were made to wait. At the inception, they visited Manthralaya. The driver of the bus failed to fill sufficient diesel while starting the journey from Mysore. At Manthralaya since there was insufficiency of diesel, the driver without intimating the Complainants and others travelers went to Raichur and got filled diesel and then came to Manthralaya. The distance between Manthralaya to Raichur is 70 Kms. Thereby, the Complainants and other travelers were made to pay the charges for 140 Kms. Thereafter, from Manthralaya they went to Hyderabad. The drivers stopped the bus at Hyderabad and did not agree to continue the tour on the guise that the driver has no permit to move further. From 21.01.2009 to 23.01.2009 they were made to stay at Hyderabad by staying in lodge and they were made unnecessarily to spend Rs.1,00,000/- for lodging charges, food etc., and further, they were made to make payment for 700 Kms. For two days, while a bus was stopped for two days anticipating the permit. Instead of sending the permit to Hyderabad, Opposite parties sent the permit to Thirupathi and directed the driver to collect the same at Thirupathi. The distance between Hyderabad to Thirupathi is 700 Kms. In the tour Thirupathi was not covered. Thereby, the Complainants and others have been charged for extra 700 Kms. The permit was sent for making tour in Tamilnadu which was not covered in the tour. After making tour in Tamilnadu, they returned back on 29.01.2009. The Complainants have been unnecessarily charged for 1540 Kms., which comes to Rs.52,360/-. The bus was not provided with TV or Tape recorder. Though, the bus was sent Raja Hamsa, but it was an ordinary one. The Opposite party is supposed to render proper service to the tourists and the Complainants and other tourists were made to suffer mentally for their unnecessary stay at Hyderabad for two days, there is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. The Opposite party is liable to refund Rs.52,360/- which has been collected in excess for no fault of the Complainants and Opposite party is liable to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The Complainants are the key persons for arranging the tour and on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party, the Complainants have incurred wrath of other tourists. The 1st Opposite party has issued letter dated 12.09.2009 and 14.10.2009 directing the 1st Complainant to remit Rs.11,120/-. The Complainant also got issued legal notice on 22.09.2009. The Opposite parties have not complied with the notice. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3.The notices were served on the Opposite parties. The 1st Opposite party has filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, since all the travelers are not made party. Admitting, the engagement of the bus by the Complainants for tour in Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra from 18.01.2009 to 28.01.2009 at the rate of Rs.34/- per KM and to cover totally 3,500 K.Ms. and the journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 A.M. on 18.01.2009, the Complainants had agreed to all the terms and conditions regarding the rate, date and time of return of the bus. The Complainants requested the Opposite party to take the bus on hire for the tour, which includes Bangalore, Puttaparthi, Manthralaya, Mahanandi, Sreeshaila, Hyderabad, Shirdi, Ajantha, Aurangabad, Ellora, Nasik, Bombay, Poona, Phandharapur, Bijapur, Koodala Sangama, Hospet, Chitradurga, Shravanabelagola, Mandya & Mysore. The Complainant had paid Rs.1,47,000/- as hire charges. The Complainants and others have changed the tour programme when the bus was in Hyderabad and they decided to continue their tour in Tamil Nadu instead of Maharshtra and requested the Opposite parties to permit them to make the tour in Tamilnadu and to issue permit of Tamilnadu. The Opposite parties have obliged to conduct the tour in Tamilnadu instead of their earlier place in Maharashtra as per the tour list. The tour places had been changed by the Complainants and other tourists and not by the employee of the Opposite party. The Opposite parties sent the permit of Tamilnadu to Thirupathi, as per the request of the Complainants. As such, inconvenience, expenditure, if any, are all due to the act of the Complainants. Absolutely there is no deficiency in service whatsoever by the Opposite parties and they are not responsible for any cause in any manner. There is delay of two days in arrival of the bus and the Complainants are liable to pay Rs.11,120/-. In spite of several demands, the Complainants have not paid to the Opposite parties. The other averments are denied. The hire agreement entered into at Mysore and actual journey of the bus started from Mysore and ended at Mysore. Hence, there is no cause of action and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount. Though, the legal notice was issued to the Complainants, there is no need to send reply as it is a false and baseless notice. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4.The 2nd Opposite party has filed version contending that hire agreement referred in the complaint has been entered into at Mysore and actual journey of the bus started from Mysore and ended at Mysore. There is no part of 2nd Opposite party in the above said transaction. The Complainants have unnecessarily dragged 2nd Opposite party as a party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of party with costs. 5.During trial, the 1st & 2nd Complainants are examined and produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.13. On behalf of the Opposite parties 3 witnesses are examined as R.W.1 to 3 and they have produced documents Ex.R.1 to R.15. 6.We have heard both the sides. 7.Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1.Whether the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants? 2.Whether the Complainants are entitled to refund of Rs.52,360/- with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for a direction not to make any deduction of Rs.11,120/- out of the salary of the 1st Complainant? 8.Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9.POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainants and other 42 villagers from Soonagalli Village, hired the bus from 1st Opposite party at Mysore for a tour in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra from 18.01.2009 to 28.01.2009 as per tour chart and the journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 A.M. and the fair was fixed at Rs.34/- per KM and the total distance to be covered in the said tour was 3,500 K.M. and Ex.R.1 is the application for the said purpose by 1st Opposite party and Ex.C.2 is a letter undertaking to pay inter state permit charges and other charges and Ex.R.13 is the list of passengers and as per Ex.R.1, 1st Complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Admittedly, the tour was started on 18.01.2009 and the tour ended on 29.01.2009. It is also admitted fact that the tour was made from Mandya to Puttaparthi and then to Manthralaya and then to Hyderabad and instead of tour programme in Maharashtra State, as furnished to the 1st Opposite party, the tour was conducted in Tamilnadu. 10.The grievance of the Complainants is that 1) the journey was supposed to be started at 4.30 a.m. on 18.01.2009, but the bus arrived at 4.30 p.m. to Mandya where the tourists were to board the bus and the tourists were made to suffer and wait and lost the opportunity to visit the tour places on the way to Puttabarti. (2) without the knowledge of the Complainants and other tourists, the driver took the bus from Manthralaya to Raichur, which is at a distance of 70 kms. to get the diesel and they were made to pay extra charges for 140 Kms. (3) The Complainants were made to stay at Hyderabad from 21.01.2009 to 23.01.2009 in the lodge spending Rs.1,00,000/- towards lodging charges, food etc., and they were made to make payment for 700 Kms. for two days, though the bus was stopped for no fault of them and further, instead of sending the permit to Hyderabad, the 1st Opposite party sent the permit to Thirupathi which is not covered under the tour programme and the Complainants have been charged for extra 700 kms. So, according to the Complainants unnecessarily, they have been charged extra for 1540 kms. which comes to Rs.52,360 and they were made to sped Rs.1,00,000/- unnecessarily for stay at Hyderabad for two days. 11.But, the defence of the 1st Opposite party is that the Complainants and other travelers changed the tour programme when the bus was in Hyderabad and they decided to continue the tour to Tamilnadu instead of Maharashtra, they are not responsible for the change of tour places, the tour places had been changed by the Complainants and other tourists and not by any employee of the Opposite parties. At the request of the Complainants, the Opposite party sent the permit of Tamilnadu to Thirupathi and they are not responsible for any cause in any manner. 12.With regard to the delay of arrival of the bus to Mandya at 4.30 p.m. instead of 4.30 a.m. on 18.01.2009, the 1st Opposite party has simply denied the averment, there is no explanation for the same. But, in the evidence, 1st Opposite party tried to contend by examining R.W.1 to 3, wherein R.W.1 & 2 have deposed that the bus started at 4.30 a.m. from the depot and on the way near Siddalingapura, the pump of the bus failed and bus was stopped and informed the same to the depot and Technical persons came and the pump was changed in the afternoon and then they came to Soonaganahalli near Mandya and picked up the tourists. According to the R.W.3, that on 18.01.2009 they sent one Mechanic Sri.U.K.Mahadevu, on the information given by the drivers about the problem of the bus given on hire to the Complainants and Mahadevu informed that there is problem in fuel injector and they had to replace the fuel injector at 3.30 p.m. and completed the repairs and handed over to the drivers to proceed for tour and according to the R.W.3, this problem is very rear and mechanical problem while the bus was moving. R.W.3 has admitted the document of checking the bus by the mechanics before handing over to the bus to the drivers for the tour purposes is not produced. It is expected by KSRTC Authorities before handing over the bus to the driver for tour purpose for more than 10 days to see the parts are in order and the bus is in good condition and the bus should be a recent one manufactured. There is no document of the year on which bus in question was manufactured, though it is a Raja Hamsa. Even though, the log sheet Ex.R.5 is produced, but it is not signed by the drivers R.W.1 & 2. According to them, log sheet is prepared in the office. But, according to the 1st Opposite party, the drivers have prepared this log sheet. In Ex.R.5, the bus left the depot at 6.30 a.m. But, it is mentioned as 4.30 a.m. and at 3.30 p.m. the bus left the place. It is wonder, they need 10 ½ hours for repairing the problem of the bus. The Complainants and other tourists were made to wait near Mandya from the morning till the evening and they lost the opportunity of visiting the places on the way from Mandya to Puttbarthi. Even though, the details of the tourist places on the way from Mandya to Puttbarthi are not mentioned, but main tourist places will be mentioned in tour chart. Therefore, the Complainants and other tourists for no fault of them were put to hardship and mental agony and lost the opportunity of seeing tourist places on the way from Mandya to Puttbarthi, though, they were made to pay the charges for same distance, because according to the evidence of P.W.1, they had to reach Puttbarthi at 10.00 a.m., but they reached Puttbarthi at 9.30 p.m. Under these circumstances, naturally the Complainants and other tourists are put to mental agony and inconvenience simply traveling from Mandya to Puttbarthi without seeing anything. 13. The second grievance of the Complainants is that without permission of the Complainants and other tourists, the driver took the bus from Manthralaya to Raichur to get the diesel filling, covering distance of totally 140 kms. and they were burdened with charges. According to them, the driver of the bus failed to fill sufficient fuel while starting the journey from Mysore. There was insufficiency of diesel at Manthralaya. The 1st Opposite party has simply denied the said allegations without giving any explanation. But, in the evidence through the drivers tried to put up a theory that the tourists insisted upon them to take the bus to see Panchamuki Temple and with their notice, the bus was taken to Raichur to get the diesel. 14.It is expected and reasonable that the Opposite party should get the fuel filled up sufficiently for tour purpose at the places on the way to tourist places. Admittedly, this Panchamuki is not covered under the tour programme and even Raichur is not covered and there was no necessity to go to Raichur. In the log sheet Ex.R.5 there is no mention of bus going to Raichur from Manthralaya. The 1st & 2nd Complainants have denied for having visited Panchamuku Temple, which is on the way from Manthralaya to Raichur. So, the evidence of the R.W.1 & R.W.2 about visiting Panchamuki and taking the bus to Raichur to get the fuel with the knowledge of the Complainants cannot be accepted at all, because there is no pleading to that effect at all. Therefore, the Complainants were burdened with 140 kms. and hence, there is some deficiency on the part of 1st Opposite party. 15.The another grievance of the Complainants is that the driver stopped the bus at Hyderabad and did not agree to continue the tour on the guise, the driver has no permit to move further and from 21.01.2009 to 23.01.2009 they were made to stay at Hyderabad spending Rs.1,00,000/- for lodging charges and burdened with 700 km. without visiting any place. Now, if we analyse the evidence available on record, it cannot be accepted that there was no permit to go to Maharashtra from Hyderabad, because the original tour programme was from Hyderabad to Shirdi, Ajantha, Aurangabad, Ellora, Nasik, Bombay, Poona, Pandarapura, Bijapura, Koodala Sangama, Hospet, Chithradurga, Sravanabelagola, Mandya & Mysore. In fact, the Complainants have produced Ex.C.10 the permit for the said tour. So, under these circumstances, the evidence of their drivers that the tour programme could not be continued in Maharashtra and other places on account of border dispute agitation and at the request of the Complainants through phone, the 1st Opposite party obtained the tour permit to tour in Tamilnadu as per Ex.R.4 is to be accepted Admittedly, the tour permit was sent to Thirupathi, where the drivers of RW.1 & 2 obtained the same and the tour was continued from Hyderabad to Thirupathi and then Tamilnadu. There is delay in obtaining the permit, because they informed the same on 21.01.2009 night, but the permit was sent on 23rd January 2009. The evidence of 1st Complainants discloses that on the night 21.01.2009 they reached Hyderabad and so, thereafter intimation through phone was sent to the 1st Opposite party Office and they have moved for the permit and obtained the permit on 23.01.2009 as per Ex.R.4. Naturally to obtain the permit, the RTO Office takes time and the permit was sent to Thirupathi instead of Hyderabad on the availability of conveyance. So, the Complainants were to stay at Hyderabad without visiting any places on account of the reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite parties or the Complainants and now, the 1st Opposite party has charged for two days for 700 kms. According to the witnesses, R.W.1 & 2 on behalf of the 1st Opposite party, the Complainants used the bus at Hyderabad visiting the tourists places at Hyderabad like Ramoji Rao Film City and other places on 22nd and 23rd of January 2009. But, the drivers of the bus as per Ex.R.9 have stated that on 22nd & 23rd of January 2009 the bus did not move at all. So, under these circumstances, burdening the Complainants for the charges for 700 kms. for stay at Hyderabad is unreasonable and not justified. The say of the Complainants that they are burdened with expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- for stay at Hyderabad in lodges with food cannot be accepted, because they have to bear expenses for the stay, because the Opposite party is not responsible for the same. As per the evidence of the drivers, the Complainants and villagers had taken a cook along with materials and used to prepare the food on the way. 16.So, totally according to the Complainants, excess fare of Rs.52,360/- has been charged. According to the 1st Opposite party for the tour distance, the Complainants still due of Rs.11,120/- and the notice has been issued by 1st Opposite party to 1st Complainant, as per Ex.R.11 and served on the 1st Complainant as per Ex.R.11(a) and for this, the 1st Complainant has requested as per the letter Ex.R.8 to reduce the kms. and thereafter, the Complainants got issued a legal notice Ex.C.1. 17.The evidence available on record clearly established that the Complainants were unnecessarily burdened with 140 + 700 kms. and at the rate of Rs.34/-, the cost comes to Rs.28,560/-. According to the 1st Opposite party, the Complainants still due of Rs.11,120/-. So, deducting this amount of Rs.11,120/- claimed by the 1st Opposite party, the Complainants are burdened with extra Rs.17,440/- and the 1st Opposite party is liable to refund the same. Further, for the inconvenience for the first day in starting the tour programme due to late arrival of the bus to Mandya from Mysore, the 1st Opposite party is responsible. For the reasons stated above and thus, Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 18.The 1st Opposite party has contended that the tour agreement has taken place at Mysore and the bus started from Mysore and ended at Mysore and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction and further, all the tourists are not parties to the Complainant and complaint is not maintainable. 19.With regard to the jurisdiction of this Forum, though the agreement for the tour programme was entered into at Mysore, but actually the tour had to start from Mandya where the tourists had to board the bus at Mandya as per the agreement and also evidence of the drivers and even the tourists had ended the tour programme at Mandya and thereafter, the bus reached to Mysore. Further, KSRTC has a Branch at Mandya and therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. With regard to the question of all tourists not made a party in this complaint, as per Section 2(1)(b), the Complainant means one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. The evidence discloses that these two Complainants arranged the tour programme for the villagers and entered into contract with 1st Opposite party for tour programme and therefore, these two Complainants on behalf of the other tourists can maintain the complaint and therefore, the complaint is maintainable by the present Complainants. 20.It cannot be said that 2nd Opposite party is unnecessarily made a party to this complaint. Though the transaction took place between the Complainants and 1st Opposite party, but admittedly 2nd Opposite party is also at branch of the KSRTC and though no relief is claimed against the 2nd Opposite party, but the complaint cannot be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. 21.In view of the above reasons, it is proved by the Complainants that the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not sending the well condition bus in time and charging for the extra kilometers for no fault of the Complainants and in the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER 1.The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.17,440/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainants within two months. 2.The complaint against 2nd Opposite party is dismissed. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 2nd day of March 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)

......................Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma
......................Sri.Siddegowda