IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 24/10 DATED 22.04.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Dinesh Solanki,<br /> No.1198/1-A, II Floor,<br /> Opp. to Chamaraja Puram Railway under Bridge, Chamarajapuram,<br /> Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.B.P.K., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Divisional Controller, <br /> Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Nelson Mandela Road, Bannimantap Extension, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.P., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 23.01.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 08.03.2010<br /> Date of order : 22.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTHS 14 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and further, to restrain the opposite party from supplying mineral water bottle without statutory contents and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst other facts, in the complaint, it is alleged that, on 05.01.2010 the complainant by paying Rs.240/- traveled in the Volvo bus belonging to the opposite party. The driver/conductor distributed mineral water bottle to the passengers including the complainant. Before consuming the water, the complainant noticed that, there was no date of manufacturing or packing or other information required by the statute. Opposite party is required to take care of the passengers and it shall not distribute the water bottles unsafe for consumption. For providing service to the complainant, opposite party has received consideration from the passengers. The opposite party is venturing into such tactics to attract the customers by unfair trade practice, by making mis-representation. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version has denied all most all the material allegations in the complaint. It is contended that, water bottles are supplied to the passengers at free of cost. Also, it is contended by the opposite party that, water bottles were given as complementary. It is denied that, the complainant traveled in the bus as alleged. It is contended that, the complainant could have lodged complaint at enquiry counter. Also, it is stated that, the complainant might have scratched the particulars, which were on the bottle. It is contended that, the complainant is not a consumer. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has filed his affidavit to prove the facts alleged in the complainant and produced ticket and water bottles. On the other hand, the Divisional Controller of the opposite party has filed his affidavit. We have heard the arguments of learned advocate for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice and that he is entitled to any reliefs claimed?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Though, opposite party has denied that, the complainant traveled in the bus or that the complainant might have scratched the particulars on the bottle etc., assuming that in fact the complainant traveled in the bus and that in fact the bottle did not contain statutory details, let us first consider, whether the complainant is a consumer? <br /> <br /> 8. Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party is only in respect of supply of water bottle without date of packing or manufacturer.<br /> <br /> 9. Throughout the complaint, the complainant has alleged that, the driver or conductor of the bus supplied or distributed the water bottle. It is not at all the case of the complainant that, he purchased the water bottle or that the driver or conductor sold the water bottle. Definite and specific contention of the opposite party is that, it free of cost water bottles were distributed to the passengers as complementary. Hence, to hold that the complainant is a consumer and that the opposite party rendered service, it must be for “consideration”. If it is without consideration, the complainant cannot be considered as consumer.<br /> <br /> 10. It is true that, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.240/-, the charges to travel from Mysore to Bangalore. It is the fare and that is mentioned in the ticket that the complainant has produced. There is no convincing and acceptable evidence to hold that said bus fare included price of the water bottle. Hence, under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has not proved passing of any “consideration” for the said water bottle.<br /> <br /> 11. Learned advocate for the complainant pointed out section 2(r)(iii)(a) which reads as under:-<br /> “The offering of gifts, prize, or other items with the intention of not providing them as offered or creating impression that, something is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole”.<br /> <br /> 12. Thus, the learned advocate submitted that offering gifts as contended by the opposite party that the water bottle given as free of cost as complementary, amounts to unfair trade practice. It is relevant to note that, the definition of the unfair trade practice starts with that a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the same, use or supply of any goods or for the purpose of any service, adopts unfair method or unfair, or deceptive practice and includes various other aspects mentioned therein.<br /> <br /> 13. Hence, firstly in the case on hand, it has not been proved that the opposite party for the purpose of promoting the sale or service, water bottle was supplied. Secondly, opposite party has not given the water bottle to the passengers as gift or prize. Offering of gift, prize or other items with the intention of not providing them as offered or creating impression that something is being given or offered free of charge when it is covered by the amount charged in the transaction. Then, it may amounts to unfair trade practice. In the case on hand, there is no question of offer made by the opposite party the water bottle with the intention of not providing the same. In fact water bottle is supplied. Thirdly, as noted earlier, the price of the water bottle is not covered by the bus fare. Hence, supply of water bottle by the opposite party to the passengers including the complainant, cannot held that the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 14. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is in negative. <br /> 15. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 22nd April 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />