DISTRICT CONSUMER D REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15^th day of December 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                           Date of filing:  16/07/2016

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                CC/98/2016

V.S.Gokuldas,

S/o Late Sukumaran,

Vadakkumpuram House,                                                   - Complainant

Erimayoor.P.O, Palakkad – 678 546.                                                        

(By Adv.Viju.K.Raphel)

                                                            Vs

1.  Kerala Road Transport Corporation

Represented by Its Managing Director,

Transport Bhavan, Fort,

 Thiruvananthapuram – 695 023.

2.  Kerala Road Transport Corporation

Palakkad Depot,

(Represented by its District Transport Officer)                         - Opposite parties

KSRTC Bus Stand, Palakkad – 678 014.

(Both Adv.P.K.Sreedharan)

3.  P.R.Ramesh,S/o.Raveendran.N,

 Pokkalath House,Kottathara.P.O,                                        – impleaded as suppl.

Mannarakkad, Palakkad.                                                        opposite parties 3 & 4

(Driver of the bus)                                                                   as per order

4. C.Krishnan,S/o.Chamu,                                                      in IA 506/2016   

Angale House,                                                                       dated 3.1.2017.

Moolancode.P.O,

Kizhakkencherry, Palakkad.

(Conductor of the bus)    

(By Adv.S.Radhakrishnan for Opp. Parties 3 and 4)

                                                          O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

Brief facts of the complaint are mentioned below. 

          The complainant is a welder and is doing the welding work for daily wages at Coimbatore for various contractors and is a daily commuter between Palakkad and Thrissur route and is a regular traveler in the opposite parties bus services in Erimayur Palakkad sector which lies in NH 47 Palakkad-Thrissur Route.  Erimayur is a main town which has a bus stop during the day time and night time.  Because of the nature of his job complainant is a daily commuter in late night hours to his house at Erimayur.  According to the complainant, the number of KSRTC buses which are plying between Palakkad and Thrissur towards the Thrissur side decreases after 8.30 PM in the night and after 8.30 PM the private buses stop their services fully.  The frequency of KSRTC town to town services run by the opposite parties is very small after 8.30 PM.  After the construction of a new four line highway of NH 47 between Walayar and Vadakkencherry stretch, a new flyover has been constructed above the Erimayur town and the flyover starts from about two kilometers away towards the Palakkad side from the Erimayur town and ends at Alathur Swathy junction.  A service road is also constructed from the start of the flyover in both ends which touches Erimayur town.  Flyover is constructed in such a way that there is no exit in between the starting point and the ending point, so that if any vehicle or any commuter travelling through NH 47, to reach the Erimayur town one has to take deviation from the start of flyover on both sides.  On 22.06.2016 the complainant boarded Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram Super Fast passenger KSRTC bus No.RSE 194 at about 21.00 hours after making enquiry at the KSRTC bus depot enquiry counter at Palakkad about the stop of the concerned bus at Erimayur town.  The officer of the 2^nd opposite party at the enquiry counter informed the complainant that the aforesaid bus has a stop at Erimayur town as a request stop of the passenger after 8 pm.  Believing his words, the complainant boarded the said bus and took a ticket to Alathur to get down at the request stop at Erimayur town by paying Rs.25/- on that day.  When the bus crossed the Coyalmannam town the complainant had requested the bus conductor that since he had to get down at Erimayur town, the bus should be diverted through the service road before entering the flyover to reach Erimayur town.  The said request of the complainant was not considered and the on duty conductor in the bus instead of informing the driver of the bus to divert the bus through service road to reach the Erimayur town, refused to divert the bus to Erimayur town and to drop the complainant at Erimayur town.  The bus passed the Erimayur town without stopping there, through the flyover. Then the complainant requested the duty conductor and driver of the said bus to take the bus to Alathur Police Station, but his request was not considered by them.  The bus crossed Alathur also without dropping the complainant there who had taken a ticket to Alathur, in order to get down at Erimayur town. Hence, very grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice occurred on the part of the duty staff of the opposite party in the said KSRTC bus ie. opposite parties 3 & 4.  According to the complainant co-passengers of the bus intervened and the staff of the 2^nd opposite party in the bus agreed to take the complainant to Vadakkancherry police station.  On reaching Royal junction, Vadakkancherry the bus stopped and the complainant was asked to get down from the bus and the driver and the conductor of the bus agreed to accompany the complainant to Vadakkancherry police station.  Believing the words of the conductor and driver of the bus the complainant got down the bus waiting for the conductor and driver of the said bus to get down from the bus to accompany him to the police station, but the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus and drove away which shows serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of supplemental opposite parties 3 & 4.  Since it was late night and the complainant had to go for his duty the next day, Complainant did not make a police complaint on the same day (22/06/2016).  Then, by travelling in another KSRTC Fast Passenger bus            (No.RNC 787) from Vadakkancherry, complainant reached Erimayur town at deep hours of the night which caused much mental agony to him.  The very next day (23/06/2016) complainant called the DTO Palakkad and registered the complaint by telephone.  The District Transport Officer, Palakkad intimated the complainant that he had noted all the details of his complaint, his contact details and assured the complainant that he would take all possible steps.  According to the complainant he was waiting eagerly for the 2^nd opposite party’s action on his complaint but without success which also caused him much mental agony and distress.  The above acts of the opposite parties caused great mental pain and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.  Hence the complainant humbly prays to this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the bus fare of Rs.23/- to the complainant form Vadakkanchery to Erimayur town, to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the pain and sufferings and mental agony suffered by the complainant, due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the opposite parties and to pay to the complainant the cost of this complaint. 

          The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties to enter their appearance and file their versions.  In their version jointly filed by opposite parties 1 & 2, they contend that except those admitted the statements in the complaint are false and denied by these opposite parties.  The statements made in various paras of the complaint are false and hence denied by these opposite parties.   Also these opposite parties admit that complainant has taken a bus ticket from Palakkad to Alathur, but these opposite parties contend that at that time since TT services are available to the complainant it is not necessary for him to get into a superfast KSRTC bus then.  Opposite parties contend that without entering Erimayur town these long distance superfast KSRTC buses are operating their services through flyover and by getting into these buses, passengers are not permitted to get down at Erimayur town.  By receiving fixed charges for fixed time and fixed distance KSRTC super category services are operated.  Opposite parties also denied the statement made by the complainant that after passing Coyalmannam the conductor of the said bus was asked to go via service road and to divert the said bus to Alathur police station.  These opposite parties also contended that this bus stopped at Alathur Swathy junction and other passengers got down.  In Alathur Swathy junction stop that complainant was not allowed to get down is not correct.  To protect the interest of passengers especially women passengers all the services of KSRTC including their superfast, super express, super deluxe services between 9 pm and 6 am should stop in the places demanded by them to get down, which instruction complainant is trying to misuse, as contended by the opposite parties and after considering the circumstances of the passengers appropriate decision should be taken by the concerned bus conductor and the driver of the bus.  But in this matter according to these opposite parties complainant was stubborn and unnecessarily filed this complaint against the opposite parties and also by getting into this super fast bus service created difficulties to other passengers.  These opposite parties denied the complainant’s statement that on fellow passengers intervention the said bus was agreed to be taken to Vadakkencherry police station and complainant was made to get down at Royal junction Vadakkencherry and after that the bus was driven away by the driver of the disputed bus; this statement is not correct and therefore denied by these opposite parties.  Also these opposite parties denied that a complaint was registered in the opposite parties office through telephone on the very next day of this incident.  These opposite parties did not do any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and therefore no financial loss is incurred by the complainant.  Hence according to opposite parties 1 & 2 complaint demanding compensation should be dismissed with compensatory cost. 

          As per the version filed by supplemental 3^rd opposite party, this opposite party denies the rest of the statements made by the complainant in his complaint except those admitted by this opposite party.  The contents in various paragraphs of the complaint are not correct.  Actually complainant got in to the bus and for getting down at Erimayur bus stop complainant asked the 4^th opposite party to get down at Erimayur but without hearing this the 3^rd opposite party did not stop the bus at Erimayur town and drove away is not correct.  The 3^rd opposite party contends that from their part and other opposite parties no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service occurred. This opposite party agrees that on 22.06.2016 he was the driver of the KSRTC superfast passenger RSE 194 number bus which started from Palakkad and bound for Thiruvananthapuram at 9 pm, but contends that whether the complainant travelled in this bus is to be confirmed by the 4^th opposite party.  In the Erimayur bus stop the complainant did not ask the 3^rd opposite party to stop the bus.  According to the 3^rd opposite party this bus has to go from Palakkad to Alathur through NH route permit and there is no need for this bus driver to go via below flyover bypass.  This bus has been given only the route permit to go above the flyover via NH and against this route permit opposite parties 3 & 4 cannot act.  On 22/06/2016 when the bus was going above Erimayur flyover the complainant all of a sudden stood up and demanded to divert the bus and go via Erimayur town bypass but that demand could not be allowed which was also informed to him by the 4^th opposite party.  When this bus stopped at Alathur Swathy junction and dropped the passengers complainant was not willing to get down there, then the bus proceeded to Vadakkencherry royal junction and the 4^th opposite party asked the complainant to get down there, but complainant was not willing to get down there but other passengers made the complainant to get down the bus. Hence 3^rd opposite party contends that complaint is not lawfully allowable and all the aversions made in the complaint were false and from this opposite party no compensation is recoverable.  Hence this opposite party prays for an order to dismiss this complaint with cost. 

          In the version filed by the 4^th opposite party he contends that except those expressly admitted the rest of the statements made by the complainant in his complaint are false and therefore denied by this opposite party.  According to this opposite party the aversions made by the complainant in paras 1 to 7 of the complaint are denied by this opposite party.  Complainant on 22/06/2016 took a ticket at 9 pm for travelling from Palakkad to Alathur in Palakkad Thiruvananthapuram KSRTC Superfast passenger bus No.RSE 194 which is admitted by this opposite party.  He further contends that this bus has no route permit for running via Erimayur town, below the flyover through bypass.  As per the route permit allowed to this bus she has to pass above Erimayur flyover.  Against the route permit this opposite party or the 3^rd opposite party has no authority to act and for all the KSRTC superfast buses route permit is allowed in the above manner.  As per the route permit allowed to this bus it has to pass above the Erimayur flyover.  Hence this opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to accept his contentions and the complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

          Complainant and the opposite parties filed their affidavits.  Complainant also produced PW2 Affidavit submitted by Praveena.S, W/o.Sudhi.V.S. As per order in IA/506/2017 dated 03/01/2017 the driver of the bus Mr.P.R.Ramesh was impleaded as supplemental opposite party No.3 and Mr.C.Krishnan, the conductor of the bus was impleaded as supplemental opposite party No.4.  Documents filed consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 which were marked from the side of the complainant.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1 on 20/12/2017 and 4^th opposite party was cross examined as DW1 on 18/07/2018.

The following Issues are considered in this case:-

     1.    Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service and   

            unfair trade practice towards the complainant ?

     2.    If so, what is the relief and cost which the complainant is entitled for?

Issues 1 & 2

          The complainant has produced before this Forum four documentary evidences to prove his case against the opposite parties namely Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 which is a superfast passenger bus ticket from Palakkad to Alathur issued by the duty conductor of the disputed bus No.RSE 194 at 9 pm on 22/06/2016 which is also confirmed by the opposite parties in their versions and the deposition of the 4^th opposite party as DW1 before this Forum.  From this Exhibit it is clear that complainant has travelled at 9 pm on 22/06/2016 between Palakkad and Alathur.  Ext.A2 is a Fast Passenger ticket taken by the complainant on 22/06/2016 for his journey from Vadakkencherry to Erimayur town by Fast Passenger bus No.RNC 787 which proves that complainant has travelled between Vadakkencherry and Erimayur town in late night hours on 22/06/2016.  From the Ext.A3, it is clear that there is a memo issued by the KSRTC Chairman-cum-Managing Director dated 22/07/2014 directing all unit authorities to ensure compliance of his instructions to provide stops to travelling passengers especially female passengers at their requested places, in KSRTC superfast, super express, super deluxe and all other services between 9 pm and 6 am.  From Ext.A4, which is a question answer document produced by the complainant, it is clear that to the relevant question No.6 asked by PW2 (complainant’s witness Smt.Praveena.S) under RTI Act 2005 a relevant reply was given by Smt.Fathima Begum, Public Information Officer and Administrative Officer, KSRTC Palakkad under RTI Act 2005 as “cm{Xn 8 aWnbv¡ptijw bm{X¡mÀ Bhirs¸Sp¶ Øe§fn ({]tXyIn¨v kv{XoIÄ¡v) \nÀt¯­XmsW¶v \nÀt±iw D­v“.   Both Exts. A3 and A4 prove the existence of standing instructions to provide stops to travelling passengers at their requested places between 9 pm and 6 am in all KSRTC bus services including their superfast, super express and super deluxe services.  All the opposite parties also mentioned about the existence of this standing instruction in their versions.

          In this connection the deposition of 4^th opposite party as DW1 before this Forum is worth noting.  “]me¡mSvþXrÈqÀ tdmUn HmSp¶ KSRTC _kn conductor Bbn tPmen sN¿mdp­v.  AXpsIm­v B dq«v F\n¡v kp]cnNnXamWv.  IpgÂaµhpw Be¯qcpw Ignªm ]me¡mSnse Gähpw henb SuWmWv FcnabqÀ.  FcnabqÀ SuWnÂ\n¶v 3 In.aoäÀ ap¼v ^vssf HmhÀ XpS§pw.  FcnabqÀ Ignªv ^vssf HmhÀ Ahkm\n¡p¶Xv kzmXn PwKvj\nemWv F¶v ]dªm icnbmWv.  FcnabqÀ SuWn \n¶v kzmXn PwKvj³ hsc 5 In.aoäÀ Zqcap­mbncn¡pw.  ^vssf HmhÀ XpS§nbm ]ns¶ AXv Ahkm\n¨m am{Xta ]pdt¯¡v IS¡m³ IgnbpIbpÅq.  ^vssf Hmhdnsâ Xmsg kÀÆokv tdmUp­v.  kÀÆokv tdmUneqsS t]mbmepw ^vssf HmhdneqsS t]mbmepw In.aoäÀ hrXymkanÃ.  sshIp¶cw 8 aWn¡v tijw ]me¡mSv to XrÈqÀ¡v ss{]häv _kv kÀÆoknÃ. 22/06/2016\v RSE 194 Rm\mbncp¶p conductor.  _kv ]pds¸tS­ right time cm{Xn 9 aWnbmbncp¶p.  At¶Znhkw ]cmXn¡mc³ _kn k©cn¨ncp¶p.  At¶Znhkw _kv FcnabqÀ ^vssf Hmhdnsâ apIfnÂIqSnbmWv kÀÆokv \S¯nbXv.  Fcnabqcn Cd§Wsa¶v ]cmXn¡mc³ Bhirs¸«ncp¶p.  cm{Xn 8 aWn¡v tijw request stop \nÀ¯Wsa¶v circular D­v“.  

          In their version jointly filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 they admit that complainant has taken a bus ticket from Palakkad to Alathur but contend that without entering Erimayur town long distance superfast KSRTC bus services are operating their services through flyover and by getting into these buses passengers are not permitted to get down at Erimayur town.  These opposite parties are also aware of the existence of standing instructions mentioned in Ext.A3, which is indicated in their version.  According to opposite parties 1 and 2 appropriate decision should be taken by the concerned bus conductor and driver of the said bus.  Hence they contend that these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and therefore complaint should be dismissed.  As per the version of the 3^rd opposite party the disputed bus has to go from Palakkad to Alathur through NH route and there is no need for this bus driver to go via below Flyover bypass; the bus has been given only the route permit to go above the flyover via NH and against this route permit opposite parties 3 and 4 have no authority to act hence this opposite party contends that complaint is not allowed and should be dismissed with cost.  In the 4^th opposite party’s version it is contended that he admits that complainant took a ticket at 9 pm for travelling from Palakkad to Alathur in Palakkad – Trivandrum KSRTC superfast passenger No.RSE 194 but contends that this bus has no route permit for running via Erimayur town below the flyover through bypass and as per the route permit allowed to this bus she has to pass above Erimayur flyover and against this route permit opposite parties 3 and 4 have no authority to act.  Hence complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

          After perusing the affidavits produced by both parties and documentary evidences produced by the complainant and 4^th opposite party’s deposition as DW1 before this Forum, we have understood that the following service deficiencies have occurred on the part of the opposite parties.  (1) The duty conductor of the bus on 22/06/2016 did not ask the duty driver of the bus on 22/06/2016 to divert the bus to go via service road and to reach Erimayur town and drop the complainant passenger at Erimayur town even though he was aware of the circular dated 22/07/2014 which is clear from Ext.A3 that between 9 pm and 6 am all KSRTC bus services should stop at the requested places of travelling passengers. (2) Although complainant has taken a bus ticket from Palakkad to Alathur the bus crossed Alathur without dropping the complainant passenger at Alathur bus stop.  (3) Even though the duty staff of the bus on 22/06/2016 agreed to accompany the complainant to Vadakkencherry police station they did not do this and the 3^rd opposite party driver of the said bus drove away the disputed bus after making the complainant passenger to get down at royal junction, Vadakkencherry and from Vadakkencherry at late night hours this complainant passenger had got back to his residence at Erimayur by catching a Fast passenger bus No.RNC 787. (4) Although on 23/06/2016 to the 2^nd opposite party complainant had given a telephonic complaint about the incident occurred on 22/06/2016 and the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties 3 and 4 who were on duty in the disputed bus on 22/06/2016 no action so far is seen taken by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the erred opposite parties 3 and 4.  (5)The opposite have not produced a copy of route permit allowed to this disputed bus services and evidences to show that this bus has no route permit for running via Erimayur town below the flyover through bypass.  (6) Above all, the opposite parties in this case stated in their version about their knowledge about the existence of standing instructions and memo dated 22/07/14 issued by Chairman cum Managing Director of the KSRTC to all the unit authorities. 

          In the light of all the above it is clear to us that opposite parties have committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not providing stop in Erimayur Town requested by the complainant to get down after 9 pm on 22/06/2016, as a result of which complainant is put to a lot of mental agony, distress, besides a lot of inconvenience and difficulties during deep night hours on 22/06/2016 on which this unfortunate incident occurred.

         The result is that complaint is allowed.     

          We order all the opposite parties 1 to 4 to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him; further these opposite parties  1 to 4 are also jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) by way of cost of this proceedings incurred by the complainant. 

             This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to receive 9% interest p.a from the opposite parties 1 to 4 on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of December 2018.      

                   Sd/-

              Shiny.P.R.

              President 

                  Sd/-

              Suma.K.P.

              Member            

                  Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

              Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          – Photo copy and original Ticket No.112466 of SFP RSE 194 dated   22/06/2016 for an amount of Rs.25.00 issued

                       by the Opposite parties.

Ext.A2          – Photo copy and original Ticket No.264600 of FP RNC 787 dated 22/06/2016 for an amount of Rs.23.00 issued

                        by the Opposite parties.

Ext.A3          - Photo copy of Memorandum issued by the 1^st opposite party No.TR1- 40730/2003 dated 22.07.2014.

Ext.A4          - Photocopy of application filed under the Right To Information Act 2005  and its reply by the Public Information Officer

                      and Administrative Officer, KSRTC, Palakkad.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Gokuldas.V.S

PW2 -           Affidavit submitted by Praveena.S,W/o.Subhi.V.S, Erimayur(PO), Palakkad.

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1 – C.Krishnan(Conductor of the bus)                          

Cost  - Rs.1,000/-