Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties with their grievance that they travelled in K.S.R.T.C. bus on 19.04.2007 from Mysore to Hospet in Bus No.KA-37-3862 belonging to the Opposite parties. The journey started from Mysore at 7.20 p.m., they occupied seat No.31 and 32 and they found their window side glass was not there window was completely opened. Further, the front row seat was not properly fixed as the result they could not stretch their legs and when the front seat used hit their knees and on the way towards Channarayapatna at 9.40 p.m. the bus developed engine problem it could not be started and the conductor told them the bus will be taken to workshop for repair and they were forced to wait till 11.45 p.m. Thereafter, when the bus reached Tipatur then there was failure of head lights and the bus stopped therefore about one hour and the driver managed to drive in the same position at a speed of 10 to 15 kms. per hour in the moon light with risk to their life and also to the life of other passengers and the bus which was scheduled to reach Hospet at 5.30 or 6.00 a.m. reached at 9.30 a.m. and because of the absence of the sliding glass of the window he suffered due to cold breeze put to mental agony and hardship and even issued legal notice to the Opposite parties for which the 1st Opposite party expressed his regretness. In this way he has contended that the Opposite parties by causing deficiency in their service subjected them to harassment and therefore have prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a direction to the Opposite parties to return the cost of the ticket and also to award such compensation as this Forum deems fit in the circumstances of the case.<br /> 2. Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 are placed exparte. Opposite party 3 filed version. Opposite party 5 has adopted it. The Opposite parties in their version denied all the allegations of the Complainants as far from truth, they have further denied the absence of sliding glass and fashioning of seats improperly and contended that as there was some problem in the dynamo the vehicle was taken to Channarayanapatna depot necessary repairs were effected and journey was continued and therefore stated that the claim of the Complainant the bus had to move at 10 to 15 kms. per hour in the darkness is false and there are no merits in the Complaint. It is further alleged by them that the bus in which the Complainant travelled belongs to a private operator, therefore it do not belongs to them and it is the owner of that bus is a necessary party against whom the Complainant can take action and therefore have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the Complaint allegations, the Complainants and on behalf of the Opposite parties one Veerappa the Conductor have filed their affidavit evidence. The Complainant has produced copy of the legal notice he had issued to Opposite parties and copy of the bus ticket. Heard the Complainant and counsel for the Opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite parties had not kept the bus in roadworthiness and as a result they suffered mental agony and harassment and therefore the act of the Opposite parties amounts to deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainants are entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the affirmative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- The fact that the Complainants on 19.04.2007 travelled in bus No.KA-37-3862 from Mysore to Hospet is not denied by the Opposite parties. The Complaint allegations that in the transit they noticed several defects in the vehicle including the absence of window sliding glass, not fixing the seats firmly and the mechanical defects they have pointed out in the Complaint are denied by the Opposite parties in their version and also in their affidavit evidence. However, they have admitted that there was dynamo problem, which was attended to in the depot at Channarayanpatna and thereafter no problem arose causing hindrance to the journey of the Complainants. But, curiously the Opposite parties have not denied the arrival time of the bus at Hospet. The claim of the Complainants and their affidavit evidence the bus which ought to have reached Hospet on 20.04.2007 at 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. reached 9.30 a.m. has not been controverted and therefore has remained unrebutted. The Opposite parties have not come with any explanation or reasons for about 3 to 3½ hour delay in the bus reaching Hospet. The Opposite parties have also admitted that there was dynamo problem which was attended to in the depot of Channarayanapatna and the affidavit evidence of the Complainants that when the bus was taken to depot at Channarayanapatna themselves and other passengers were made to wait till 11.45 p.m. has also not been denied by the Opposite parties in the affidavit evidence.<br /> 7. The 3rd Opposite party as a reply to the legal notice issued by the Complainants said to have told the complainants that the bus involved was hired by them exhibiting helplessness. Therefore, this reply of 3rd Opposite party supports the cause of the Complainants, because if there was no truth in the allegation of the Complainants, the 3rd Opposite party could have held a preliminary enquiry to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations of the Complainants and denied them. But, the allegations made in the legal notice are not denied by the Opposite parties. Hence, if we take into consideration the admission of Opposite parties that the vehicle was taken to the depot at Channarayanapatna and the evidence of the Complainants that the bus reached Hospet 3½ hours late which has not been controverted, leads to a presumption that the delay of reaching Hospet was because of the ineffective functioning. Further, we also do not find any justification for rejection of the sworn statement of the first Complainant who is a practicing advocate with some experience in the Bar in he having had suffered cold breeze in the absence of side window glasses. Therefore, the delay of reaching the bus for about 3 to 3½ hours is sufficient to draw an inference of intrinsic problem in the bus and in the act of Opposite parties in not keeping the vehicle roadworthy and travel worthy.<br /> 8. The Opposite parties have contended as if the bus in which the Complainants travelled was belongs to a private operator was taken by them on hire for running on their behalf and therefore it is that private operator is accountable for the deficiency cannot be heard. Because when the Opposite parties under a contract taken the service of a private operator to run the bus for and on behalf of the corporation, it is the Opposite parties who are accountable and answerable to the lapses or deficiency and therefore, the private operator in our view is not a necessary party and we cannot accede to the contention of the counsel for the Opposite parties. They have also contended that bus belongs to North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. But, it is not in dispute that the Complainants commenced his journey from Mysore and even North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is operating its buses from Mysore Depot, therefore the Complaint is maintainable in this Forum. For these reasons, we hold that the Opposite parties No.2 to 4 have caused deficiency in their service in not keeping the vehicle roadworthy and therefore they are liable to compensate the Complainants. The Opposite parties have contended that the joint complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable, therefore is liable to be dismissed. But, we find no merits in the objection of the Opposite parties because the complainants being the husband and wife purchased a single ticket by paying requisite ticket charges and conducted journey together from Mysore to Hospet, they had also occupied seat no.31 and 32 situated side by side and contended to have suffered the agony. The first complainant as the husband of the 2nd complainant and also beneficiary has conducted this complaint by filing a joint complaint and joint affidavit evidence. Therefore, under these circumstances the joint complaint is maintainable and the same cannot be rejected on that ground. It is for these reasons we answer point no.1 and 2 in the affirmative and pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties 2 to 4 are held jointly and severally liable to the Complainant and therefore they are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to each of the Complainants within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite parties 2 to 4 are also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainants. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd April 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br />