DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of January 2024

                             Filed on: 11/02/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member                                                                   

C C. No. 90/2022

COMPLAINANT

Venugopal V.s., S/o.A.N. Velayudhan Nair, Anjaneyam, Karumaloor P.O., Pin-683 511

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Chairman & Managing Director, Kerala Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 023

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had boarded into a KSRTC Super-Fast bus (ATK 302 Thrissure-Kayamkulam) from Aluva Bye pass to got to Kayamkulam and had taken ticket worth Rs.149/- (Ticket No.32347) on 30.12.2021 at 13.44.55 pm, and there were enough seats at the bus and the complainant had sat at seat No.16.  When the bus reached at Vyttila Hub all the seats in the bus were filled and a few passengers were standing.  When the bus started from the Vyttila Hub the conductor of the bus asked the complainant to vacate seat No.16.  The conductor said that seat No.16 was reserved by an woman.  The complainant states that if the conductor had told earlier that seat No.16 was booked he could have changed his seat to another seat.  And that time there was no other seats available in the bus.  The complainant had tried to convince the conductor that he is a senior citizen having some heart related problems and he is on his way to consult a doctor.  Due to the unauthorized intervention of the conductor the complainant was forced to give his seat to the lady.  The complainant had understood that the lady passenger was a passenger of another bus and had boarded the bus illegally.  The complainant had given his seat to the lady considering the inconvenience of the other passengers.  Due to the difficulty in travelling the bus in a standing position the complainant had decided to end his journey at Cherthala.  The complainant told the conductor that he was ending his journey at Cherthala and had made a complaint before KSRTC Transport officer, Cherthala detailing the facts.  The complainant states that there was no reservation facility at the Superfast bus.   The complainant also states that he had to suffer huge mental agony, pain and other difficulties due to the irresponsible act of the conductor.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission to redress his grievance and to seek orders directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50000/- and to pay Rs.2550/- as taxi fare along with other reliefs to the complainant.

2. Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 18.03.2022.  Notice sent to the opposite party seen served on 30.03.2022.  The opposite party appeared on 07.07.2022 but version was not filed by the opposite party.  Due to the non-filing of version the opposite party is set as  ex-parte.

3. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A4.  Proof affidavit not filed by the complainant.  Complainant is absenting continuously. 

When the matter was posted for adducing evidence of the complainant, the complainant did not appear to give evidence.  The complainant is absenting from the 1^st date of posting of the case.  In the above circumstances we have perused the available documents submitted by the complainant.  Exbt.A1 is the ticket taken by the complainant for his journey on 30.12.2021.  A2 is the copy of the complaint given to the District Transport Officer/ATO, KSRTC, Cherthala by the complainant.  Exbt.A3 is the copy of the complaint given to the Managing Director of KSRTC by the complainant.  Exbt.A4 is the copy of the stamped envelope addressed to KSRTC MD.

The complainant did not produce any other document to support his case.  The documents produced by the complainant are not sufficient to prove the case.  He has not produced any evidence to prove that there was no reservation facility at the superfast bus 30/12/2021. 

Considering the above circumstances especially the non-appearance of the complainant to adduce oral evidence and to make his presence before the Commission we find that the complainant has not been successful enough to prove his case by adducing evidence to substantiate the complaint.

In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

Resultantly we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Pronounced in the open commission on this 30^th day of January 2024.

Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

uk/

Date of Despatch        :: By Hand   :: By Post