DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 28^th day of October 2024

Filed on: 27.07.2023

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                       Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                  Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                             Hon’ble Member

C.C. No. 505 of 2023

COMPLAINANT

Aneesh M.A., aged 41 years, S/o Late Ayyappan, residing at Mattathil House, Greenland Villas, Joseph Mundalam Road, Neericode P.O. Alangad, Ernakulam-683511

(Complainant  Rep. by  Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan, Adv. Sunil Nair Palakkat, Adv. Abhilash K.N, Adv. Rishi Varma TR, Adv. Jefin PB, Adv. Rithik S. Anand, Ad. Anu Paul, Adv. Sreelakshmi Menon P, Adv. Aswathy Viswanathan, Advocates, 2^nd Floor Mega Arcade, Power House Road, Cochin-682 018)

Opposite Party

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Transport Bhavan, East Fort, Pazhavangadi, Trivandrum – 695023, Rep by its Managing Director.

(OP rep. by Alex Antony Sebastian PA & Adv. Vinod MB, Room No. 414, KHCAA, Chamber Complex, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam – 682 031)

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

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

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, along with his wife and two children (aged 10 and 12), had booked four tickets on an A/C Multi-Axle bus from Kollur (Mookambika) to Aluva through the official website of the opposite party. The tickets, bearing PNR No. K8646142 was booked for a journey on 30/04/2023, with seat numbers 13, 14, 17, and 18 under Booking ID AV5771845563. The complainant paid ₹4,943 for the journey.

On the scheduled day, the complainant and his family arrived at the boarding point in Kollur by 2:00 PM for the bus departing at 2:15 PM. Despite multiple attempts to contact the opposite party for confirmation, they received no response. After waiting in extreme weather conditions until 5:30 PM, a dilapidated non-A/C bus arrived as a replacement. The complainant protested, but the agents (driver and conductor) provided no satisfactory reply.

Due to a lack of alternative transport, the family was forced to endure the uncomfortable non-A/C bus for almost 14 hours. They suffered severe physical and mental fatigue during the journey. At Thrissur, the opposite party arranged an A/C bus, but due to the Thrissur Pooram festival, the travel route was further delayed by traffic. As a result, the complainant and his family reached Aluva around 10:00 AM on 01/05/2023, eight hours later than the scheduled time.

On 03/05/2023, the complainant issued a legal notice seeking compensation, but the opposite party failed to respond adequately. The complainant has now approached this Commission, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices, seeking a refund of ₹4,943 and compensation of ₹75,000 for mental agony and hardship, along with ₹10,000 towards legal expenses.

2. NOTICE:

The Commission issued a notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed a vakkalat on 24/08/2023, but they failed to submit their version within the statutory period and were consequently set ex-parte on 01/04/2024.

3. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with four documents. The documents in the complaint are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the booking confirmation from the website of the opposite party.
• Exhibit A2: Photograph series captured by the complainant.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the lawyer notice sent by the complainant.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the Acknowledgment (AD) card.

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. Argument Note Filed by the Sri. Lakshman Lakshmanan T.J, Counsel for the Complainant

1. It is submitted that the complainant and his family were visiting the Mookambika Temple and had planned their return trip from Mookambika to Kochi on 30/04/2023. For their travel from Kollur (Mookambika) to Aluva, the complainant booked four tickets on an A/C Multi-Axle bus through the official website of the opposite party. The PNR number for the booking was K8646142, and the complainant paid ₹4,943. The seat numbers allotted were 13, 14, 17, and 18 under Booking ID AV5771845563 and service number 1415KLRTVM. A copy of the booking confirmation is produced as Exhibit A1.
2. As per the booking details, the complainant and his family arrived at the designated boarding point in Kollur around 2:00 PM with their luggage, expecting the A/C Multi-Axle bus to depart at 2:15 PM. The complainant tried several times to contact the opposite party to confirm the departure, especially since he was traveling with his wife and children. However, the opposite party did not respond to any of the calls.
3. Despite waiting from 2:15 PM onwards, the complainant and his family were left in the scorching heat of Mookambika, with no updates from the opposite party. Finally, at around 5:30 PM, a non-A/C bus bearing registration number KL-15 A.2051 (ATK 303), which was in poor condition, arrived. Upon inquiry, the agents (driver and conductor) informed the complainant that the non-A/C bus was a replacement for the booked A/C Multi-Axle bus. This substitution caused severe inconvenience to the complainant and his family, as they had specifically booked an A/C bus for the long journey.
4. The complainant attempted to reason with the bus agents, requesting a more comfortable arrangement in line with the fare paid. However, his pleas were ignored, and the agents refused to address his grievances.
5. Due to the absence of alternative transportation, the complainant and his family were forced to board the non-A/C bus. The journey from Kollur to Thrissur covered almost 500 kilometres, and the complainant’s family had to endure poor seating arrangements and extreme heat for nearly 14 hours. The exhaustion caused severe physical and mental fatigue, especially for the complainant’s children, aged 10 and 12. Photographs of the substitute bus and the family’s difficulties are produced as Exhibit A2 series.
6. After reaching Thrissur, the opposite party arranged an A/C Multi-Axle bus from the KSRTC bus stand to continue the journey to Aluva. However, the arrangement was poorly managed. Instead of following the original route, which avoided traffic congestion, the new bus entered the Thrissur town, coinciding with the Thrissur Pooram festival, causing further delays. The bus, initially scheduled to reach Aluva at 1:40 AM, only reached Thrissur KSRTC stand by 7:00 AM on 01/05/2023.
7. Upon arrival at the Thrissur bus stand, the complainant’s family faced further inconvenience as the bathrooms were overcrowded due to the festival. The family finally reached Aluva by 10:00 AM, approximately eight hours behind schedule, completely exhausted and exasperated due to the deficient service provided by the opposite party.
8. Aggrieved by the conduct of the opposite party, the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 03/05/2023, demanding compensation for the mental and physical distress caused to his family. The copy of the lawyer’s notice is produced as Exhibit A3, and the acknowledgement card returned by the opposite party on 08/05/2023 is produced as Exhibit A4.
9. Even after acknowledging the lawyer’s notice, the opposite party failed to respond or provide redress. The complainant, therefore, had no option but to approach this  Commission for justice.
10. Although the opposite party appeared before this Commission in response to the notice, they failed to file any version denying the facts raised in the complaint. This non-filing of the version implies an admission of the complainant’s claims and contentions. Despite being granted ample opportunity by the Commission, the opposite party remained indifferent to addressing the grievance.
11. The complainant submits that the opposite party, being a state-owned public transport corporation, must take necessary steps to ensure smooth transportation for the public. The complainant requests this Commission to issue directions to the opposite party to enhance its services and protect consumer rights.
12. In light of the above facts and the evidence provided, the complainant is entitled to compensation for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant prays for a refund of the fare paid, adequate compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused, and for guidelines to be issued to the opposite party to prevent such occurrences in the future.
13. Therefore, it is prayed that this Commission be pleased to allow the complaint and grant the reliefs sought by the complainant.

                 We have also noticed that a Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 4 documents marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-4.  All in support of his case. However, the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission or set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary and unjustified act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainants stands unchallenged by the opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Order dated 09/10/2017 in RP No. 579/2017 (2017(4) C.P.R 590)  also held a similar stance. 

We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions made by the counsel for the complainant and thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes presented.

This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant sought relief for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices committed by the opposite party (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) by providing an inadequate transport arrangement despite prior booking and payment.

6. Legal Analysis and Observations

i) Maintainability of the Complaint

This complaint falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the complainant purchased a service by booking bus tickets through the official website of the opposite party. Exhibit A1, the copy of the booking confirmation, substantiates the transaction. The opposite party, being a state-owned entity providing transportation services, qualifies as a service provider under the Act. As the complainant availed of these services for consideration, he qualifies as a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Since the complainant has raised valid allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, this complaint is maintainable under the Act.

ii) Deficiency in Service and Negligence

The complainant had booked four seats on an A/C Multi-Axle bus through the opposite party’s official website, paying ₹4,943. However, the opposite party substituted a non-A/C bus, which was in poor condition. This substitution, without prior intimation or consent, amounts to a deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant and his family endured severe discomfort due to extreme heat and poor seating arrangements over a long journey of nearly 14 hours.

iii) Unfair Trade Practice

Providing a non-A/C bus in place of an A/C bus without informing the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, the opposite party’s failure to respond to the complainant’s inquiries during the waiting period, coupled with delays caused by mismanagement, exacerbates the deficiency. The replacement bus reaching Thrissur late, and the additional hardship caused during Thrissur Pooram reflects negligence on the part of the opposite party.

7. Liability of the Opposite Party

The opposite party had multiple opportunities to file its version before this Commission but failed to do so within the stipulated period. This amounts to a tacit admission of the allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party's failure to perform its contractual obligations and ensure a smooth journey constitutes negligence and deficiency in service.

• In II (2020) CPJ 44 (Maha.), the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a complaint against Girikand Travels Pvt. Ltd. for providing an unfit bus during a tour. The bus faced multiple tyre failures, causing delays and financial losses to 43 tourists. The Commission held the travel agency liable for deficiency in service and ordered a refund of ₹5,61,409 with 9% interest per annum.
• Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 – The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that public authorities are liable for negligence and unfair trade practices, even if they are state-owned.

iv). Reliefs and Compensation

Considering the evidence produced and the mental and physical hardship suffered by the complainant and his family, this Commission holds the opposite party liable. The complainant has successfully established a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party.

8.  Conclusion

This Commission holds the opposite party liable for deficiency in service, negligence, and unfair trade practices, causing severe inconvenience and distress to the complainant and his family. The complainant’s case stands unchallenged, as the opposite party failed to file its version and participate in the proceedings. The complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought, and we see no reason to disbelieve his contentions.

                         This case highlights the importance of dignity and trust in public services, especially when families, including young children, embark on long journeys with the expectation of comfort and care. The complainant and his family endured not just physical discomfort but also mental anguish, waiting for hours under harsh weather conditions, only to be met with indifference and negligence. Such experiences reflect how a failure in service delivery can deeply impact individuals, leaving them exhausted, frustrated, and betrayed. A state-run corporation must understand that passengers place their trust not only in its services but also in the basic principle of fairness. This trust was broken when a promised A/C bus was replaced with a dilapidated non-A/C bus, leaving a family helpless and struggling. Public services are meant to serve with responsibility, empathy, and accountability, and any breach of this duty not only affects the individual consumer but erodes public faith in institutions.

We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainants' favour due to the significant service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the Opposite Party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence, the prayer is allowed as follows:

1. The opposite party shall refund the fare of ₹4,943 (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Three Only) to the complainant, as evidenced by Exhibit A1.
2. The opposite party shall pay ₹40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) as compensation for the complainant’s mental agony, financial loss, physical hardship, and suffering caused by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
3. The opposite party shall pay ₹10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.
4. The opposite party is further directed to implement appropriate service standards and ensure that similar incidents do not recur. This Commission recommends the development of a robust customer service mechanism to enhance timely communication and prevent such service failures. The Registry is directed to immediately forward a copy of this order to the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Kerala, Main Block, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala - 695 001.

The opposite party is liable to comply with the above orders within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to make payments under Points I and II within the stipulated time will attract an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint                        (27-07-2023) until the complete realization of the amount.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of October 2024

D.B. Binu

President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran

Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N

Member

APPENDIX

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the booking confirmation from the website of the opposite party.
• Exhibit A2: Photograph series captured by the complainant.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the lawyer notice sent by the complainant.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the Acknowledgment (AD) card.

OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE

• NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/