DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V.
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING: 14.08.2023.
CC/207/2023
U.N.Haridas, S/o.Narayanan, - Complainant
Samanwaya, Vadakkenthara PO,
Palakkad-678 012.
(By Adv.Radeesh Gopalan)
Vs
1. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, -Opposite Parties
Transport Bhavan, Fort PO,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.
2. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by Managing Director/Authorised Signatory,
Transport Bhavan, Fort PO,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.
3. Station master,
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Palakkad Depot, Palakkad City PO,
Palakkad-678 014.
(All OPs by Adv. G.Shaji)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant
The complainant booked a ticket for KSRTC Swift Garuda AC bus for his journey on 26.05.2023 from Palakkad to Kollam by payment of Rs.526/-. When the complainant reached the bus station for boarding the bus, the station master informed that the bus was cancelled and alternate arrangements have been made. The opposite party arranged an ordinary non-Ac bus for the journey. Though the opposite party had agreed that the ticket fare of the cancelled bus will be adjusted towards the substitute bus fare and balance would be refunded, the conductor did not agree for this and collected the actual bus fare from him. Another allegation is that when the complainant contacted in between, the 3rd opposite party insulted him using abusive words.
Aggrieved by the above, this complaint is filed seeking refund of Rs.526/- paid while booking the ticket along with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony apart from Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation,
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed joint version. According to them, the trip was cancelled due to the bad condition of the AC Garuda Bus for which a similar substitute is not available. Further, as a substitute had been arranged in a short period of time they arranged a non Ac Delux bus and the complainant travelled in it, to his destination. They have already refunded the amount paid by the complainant while reserving the ticket. They also denied having abused the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.
3. The following issued were framed for consideration based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties:
1. Whether the complainant was made to pay for the ticket in substituted bus?
2. Whether the opposite parties had refunded the difference in charges expended for booking Garuda Ac bus?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 and A2 as evidence. Marking of Ext.A2 was objected to on the ground that it is a ticket issued in the name of two persons and complaint is filed by one person. As per the version filed by the opposite parties there is admission that the complainant travelled by substitute bus arranged by them and they never agreed to adjust the amount paid while booking towards the substituted bus fare and full refund of are amount paid while booking has been made to the complainant. Hence, the objection is irrelevant and hence, overruled.
5. As per orders in IA.No.140/24 filed by the opposite parties, the complainant was cross examined as PW1.
6. The opposite parties did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence.
7. Issues No.1 and 2
From the evidence adduced (Ext.A2), it can be seen that the complainant had travelled from Palakkad to Kollam by the substituted bus (Non-AC) and paid Rs.802/- as charges for two persons. It further shows that the amount paid at the time of reservation was not adjusted to this fare. Though the opposite parties have claimed in their version that the fare collected (Rs.526/-) has already been refunded to the complainant on 31.05.2023, no records/documents have been made available to prove this.
8. Issues No.3 and 4
Whatever be the reasons quoted by the opposite parties, a passenger making advance booking for AC Garuda Bus is expected to get the same/similar facilities for his travel, which the opposite parties failed to provide. Though opposite party’s content that the cancellation of trip was due to unforeseen circumstances like bad condition of the vehicle, they failed to produce any guidelines/SOP issued in this regard explaining what the opposite party is expected to do in such situation. Hence, it is to be presumed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties especially in the absence of proof affidavit from the side of the opposite parties. However, the complainant has claimed huge/amount as compensation without any clear explanation. Hence, this Commission is not inclined to allow such amounts disproportionate to the consideration paid.
9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in part allowing the following reliefs.
1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and resultant mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The opposite parties are further directed to refund Rs.526/-, being the fare collected at the time of booking if not already paid as claimed in the version.
Pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Original bus ticket bearing PNR No.76502-398 dated 23.05.2023 for Rs.526/-.
Ext.A2: Original bus ticket No.272347924 dated 27.05.2023 for Rs.802/-.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1: U.N.Haridas, complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 5,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
