Date of filing: 27.08.2020

                                                               Date of Disposal:07.11.2022

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.560/2020

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Darshan B.R,

Aged about 31 years,

GF.02, SVS mansion,

Ittamadu Layout,

Bengaluru-560 085.……COMPLAINANT

In person.

V/s

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,

Rep by the Managing Director,

KSRTC, Transport House,

Bangalore-560 027.……     OPPOSITE PARTY-1

The Divisional Controller,

Kalaburgi Division-1,

MSK Miller Road,

Jewargi Cross,

Rep by Sri.Sai Kiran R, Adv.,

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant party in person has filed this complaint under Section-35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,523/- the bus ticket fare and other expenses and such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.    

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had booked bus ticket in KSRTC to go to travel to Kalaburgi on 13.12.2019 along with his brother.  Further, it is not in dispute that on the said date the complainant and his brother had travelled to Kalaburgi and returned to Bengaluru on 14.12.2019.

3. It is the further case of the complainant that on the said day the bus started 10 minutes late and reached the destination Kalaburgi around 10.15 a.m four hours late than the actual time of arrival and their purpose of visit was totally spoiled.  Further, the complainant was not able to get a vacant room in the booked lodging, because of late reaching and they had to search for a new lodge and rented a double room @ exorbitant rates for fresh up and immediately rushed to attend their purpose of visit by engaging a Taxi @ triple price than the normal rate.  Hence, there was no rest or relax and untimely food leading to mental agony.

4. It is the further case of the opposite parties that the complainant was never assured by any staff about the bus reaching the destination by 6.00 a.m in any given circumstances.  Further, the travel schedule has been completed in safe manner and that there was no delay of four hours as alleged.  Further, due to various conditions such as bad weather, seasonal rush, bad roads and unexpected traffic blocks which are beyond the control of crew of the bus and the same cannot be twisted.  Further, in view of the passenger bus and staff belonging to the north east Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, which is a separate entity with different accounts and the Managing Director of NEKRTC shall be necessary and proper party.  Later on NEKRTC was made as party and it is contended that the bus has covered a total distance of 1318 kilometres in the round trip between Kalaburgi to Bengaluru and from Bengaluru to Kalaburgi and on one way trip from Bengaluru to Kalaburgi was about 659 Kms and the normal travelling time required to complete this one-way trip was about 12 to 13 hours depending on the flow of traffic, condition of the road and the particular  trip on 13.12.2019 to 14.12.2019 has consumed 14 hours and the bus has reached the destination by 09.30 hours on 14.12.2019 morning.  As such there was no inordinate delay of four hours as alleged in the complaint.    Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the staff of the State Corporation and sought to dismiss the complaint.

5. To prove the case, the power of attorney holder of complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P10 documents.   Depot Manager of NEKRTC has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R1 and R2 documents.

6. The complainant and counsel for opposite parties have filed written arguments.

       7.  Heard the arguments.

8. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the  

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

  9.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative   

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

10.POINT NO.1:- The complainant(PW1) and Depot Manager of NEKRTC have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.   The power of attorney holder of the complainant has produced EX.P1 Power of attorney said to have been given by the complainant.  EX.P2 is the onward journey ticket details of complainant and his brother on 13.12.2019.  Ex.P3 is the return journey ticket dt.14.12.2019.  EX.P4 is the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act.  The departure time on 13.12.2019 was 19:15 hours.  It is the contention of the complainant that the bus reached the destination Kalaburgi around 10.15 a.m.  It is not at all mentioned in the ticket with regard to assured time of reaching to the destination.    Hence, there was no assurance by the staff of the opposite parties specifically in hours or by mentioning the time.  However by implication there was reaching time and it does not mean that at any time the bus can reach to the destination.  Further, it is not in dispute that from Bengaluru to Kalaburgi it was 659 kms.

11. It is the further contention of the complainant that at the time of booking at the booking centre it was assured of reaching at 6.00 A.M and there was no history of late at past.  According to PW1, there were two staffs appointed in the bus and one Shankar was driver and Mr.Thammanna Driver Cum Conductor.  Since it was a long distance travel the driver of the bus was permitted to attend by both staff on rotation and on the said date the initial driving was carried out by Mr.Shankar, driver from Bengaluru to Bellary and later on Mr.Thammanna Driver Cum Conductor, took over driving from Bellary to Kalaburgi.  Hence, we feel there is no merit in the say of the complainant that the complainant had seen initially driving the bus not by original driver who drove the bus up to Tumkur and on an enquiry it was learnt that the conductor was driving the bus.  It was replied that both were permitted to drive the bus to the destination.  DW-1 further deposed that it has consumed 14 hours and the bus has reached the destination by 09.30 hours on 14.12.2019 morning.   The contention taken in the version that due to various conditions the reaching time would not be in the control of the bus.  The complainant has produced EX.P5 and information given by NEKRTC dt.28.01.2020 stating that on 14.12.2019 the bus reached at 10.00 a.m.  Further, it is stated that on the said day as there was road repair from Challakere to Siruguppa about 160 kms and there was road traffic at Nelamangala Toll Gate there was delay in reaching the bus to Kalaburgi.  EX.P10 is the endorsement issued by Bellary Traffic Police dt.19.01.2021, in which it is stated that on 13.12.2019 at 11.00 p.m to 14.12.2019 till 4.00 a.m there was no traffic jam near Bengaluru Railway gate and in the event of any report about the traffic it would be cleared soon.  Hence, the averment in EX.P5 is contrary to EX.P10.  Further, EX.R1 is the joint statement said to have been given by the conductor and driver of the bus on the relevant date.  It is stated by them that near Bellary Railway gate there was big traffic jam and lorry was held up at railway gate.  We feel EX.R1 is contrary to the report given by Bellary Traffic Police Station vide EX.P10.

12. We feel the reason given by the opposite parties for the delay in reaching the Kalaburgi on the said day is not an acceptable one.  Further even though in EX.P5 it is stated by the authority that the bus reached by late at 10.00 a.m, the contention taken was that the bus reached at 9.30 a.m.  Hence, we feel the opposite parties have failed in their duty to reach the destination on time i.e., within the reasonable time.    Accordingly, we answer this point in affirmative. 

13.POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed the bus fare of Rs.2,430/-.  Since the complainant had travelled and utilized services he is not entitled for refund of bus fare.  The complainant did not produce any documents with regard to the tax paid.  No doubt, the complainant produced EX.P6 room rent paid.  We feel the complainant is entitled for the room rent and food charges paid.  The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony, tension and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards inconvenience.  We feel over all the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards deficiency of service caused, thereby mental agony sustained by the complainant.  Further, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.  Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.

14.POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party no.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.

The opposite party No.1 & 2 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party No.1 & 2 fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.2,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 7^th day of November, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.R.Raghavendra Rao, the Power of attorney holder of the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1.Original GPA dt.17.02.2021.

2.Original E-Ticket/Reservation Voucher dt.13.12.2019 and 14.12.2019.

3. Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act.

4. Letter dt.28.01.2020 through what Sapp.

5. Receipt bearing No.1913, 14.12.2019.

6. Medical certificate 16.12.2019.

7. CD.

8. Letter of complainant dt.08.02.2020.

9. Copy of endorsement dt.19.01.2021 of traffic inspector Bellary.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Manjunath Mayannavar, Depot Manager of opposite parties has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. The joint statement of the both the staff of the bus of opposite party no.2 dt.07.10.2020.

2. The vehicle fault status report of the subject matter trip of the bus of opposite party no.2 dt.14.12.2019.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•