Orissa

Cuttak

CC/318/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kartik Sahu - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.318/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

S/o: Simanchal Rath,Plot No.3C/876,

Sector-10,CDA,Cuttack-753014.                                     ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

Kartik Sahu,

S/o: Madhab Sahu,

At/PO:Bishra Roulkela,

                                Dist:Sundargarh,Pin-770036.                         ...Opp.Party

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:     21.09.2023

Date of Order:   21.02.2024

 

For the complainant:             Self.

For the O.P.               :             Mr. D.B.Das,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                 

Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he was travelling from Naugaon to Jharipani(Rourkela) in the bus of the O.P bearing Regd. No.OD-14S-0266 on 24.1.2023 and had paid Rs.40/- towards  the bus fare.  According to him, the said bus being an ordinary bus, an excess amount of Rs.7/- was collected from him towards the bus fare.  He had drawn attention of the bus owner as well as the authorities concerned in this connection and had also issued legal notice to the O.P on 28.2.2023.  When no fruitful result yielded, the complainant has filed this case against the O.P seeking refund of the bus fare that which he had paid to the O.P to the tune of Rs.40/- and also has claimed to compensate him with a sum of Rs.95,500/- towards his mental agony and harassment and deficiency of service.  He has further claimed from the O.P the cost of his litigation and has prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has stated that he is a stage carriage operator having vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-14S-0266 with permit no.01-G-2021 and the operating route for his said bus was from Tainda to Rourkela Via Sorada Jhirpani and his bus was providing ordinary service.  But according to the O.P, the case of the complainant is not maintainable being alleged baselessly and rather the complainant had fabricated a case against him.  The O.P was never served any legal notice by the complainant.  According to the O.P, there was no deficiency in service on his part for the complainant of this case.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues no.I & II.

Out of the three issues, issues no.i & ii  being the pertinent issues are taken up together  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, written notes of submission from the side of O.P, as well as the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant claims to have travelled from Naugaon to Jhiripani(Rourkela) on 24.1.2023 in bus bearing No.OD-14S-0266  and had paid a sum of Rs.40/- towards the bus fare.  The legal notice as claimed by the complainant to have been issued on his behalf to the O.P is not proved to have been served upon the O.P of this case.  There is no document to apprise this Commission that actually what is the distance in-between the Naugaon to Jhiripani and if the bus fare as paid is in excess of the prescribed bus fare as alleged.  The claim of the complainant that he had travelled in the bus of the O.P on 24.1.2023 is also not properly established through any cogent evidence.  Keeping such facts and circumstances in mind, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that the O.P has not committed any deficiency in rendering service to the complainant as alleged here in this case. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is also found not to be maintainable being devoid of any merit.  Thus, these two important issues go against the complainant.

Issue No. iii.

From the above discussions, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of Feburary,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                               

                                                                                 

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President

 

                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member