By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that on 3/1/09 the complainant entered in a transport bus from Sakthan bus stand, Thrissur at 4 pm and there was a board on the bus as “Erumeli FP”. The complainant is residing at Kodakara. The buses in which FP board was affixed is having a fare stage at Kodakara. The complainant was in the belief that the said bus also had fare stage at Kodakara. Only on this belief he had entered in the bus. The complainant had given Rs.20/- to the conductor and he returned the ticket along with 2 rupees. When questioned about this it was told that since there is no fare stage at Kodakara, the charge to Chalakudy is taken. The respondent acted illegally by putting the board of FP and charged the fare which was applicable in LSFP bus. This act of respondents is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is incorrect and denied that all the buses having the board FP have fare stage at Kodakara. On 3/1/09 there was a special service to Pumba from Palakkad and there was reservation of 45 devotees of Sabarimala. As per the direction of EDO it was run with the fare table of Pamba special service. There was board as special service on the bus. Such type of festival services will not have stop at Kodakara. After Thrissur fare stage is at Chalakudy. It is incorrect that the complainant had travelled in the special service bus started from Palakkad to Pamba carrying 45 devotees of lord Ayyappa. It was unable to provide ticket to the complainant to Kodakara because there was no fare stage at Kodakara. There was no irresponsible act from the respondent. There was no imposing of excess charge from the complainant. The other averments in the complaint are incorrect and denied. There was no need to get into the Pamba special service bus by complainant. It was also announced that the bus is a special service to Pamba. There was no deficiency in service from the respondent. Hence dismiss.
3.Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondents?
2) If so releifs and costs ?
4. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 and RW1, Exhibits P1 to P8 series and Exhibits R1 and R2.
5. It is the case that on 3/1/09 the complainant get into a transport bus to go to Kodakara. According to him there was a board on the bus written as “Erumeli FP”. The complainant would say that the buses in which there are boards showing FP have fare stage at Kodakara and he had got into the bus only under this faith and belief. But the bus was not have fare stage at Kodakara and the conductor had taken charge of Rs.18/-, the charge to Chalakudy. Thus it is the case of complainant that the respondents imposed fare of LSFP bus instead of FP bus. So he wants to get back Rs.18/- the amount collected from him. The respondents filed their version by stating that the said bus was an additional service to Pamba from Palakkad and there was board as special service and such buses will not have fare stage at Kodakara. According to them it is incorrect that the buses having FP board have fare stage at Kodakara.
6. The complainant is examined as PW1 and according to him it is out of his experience he is saying that all the FP buses have fare stage at Kodakara. It is his definite case that under this belief he had travelled in that bus. A witness is also examined from his part as PW2 and he is conducting a shop at Sakthan Nagar, Thrissur. According to him on that day Rs.18/- was imposed and he has no complaint about this. According to him also there was no board shown as special service to Sabarimala and there is only the board as “FP”.
7. The Assistant Transport Officer of KSRTC, Thrissur depot is examined as RW1 and according to him there was board on the bus as “Swamy Saranam”. He would depose that if that board was affixed stop of the bus will be less and there will be change in charge also. But he was not in the bus at that time and he was not working in Thrissur at that time. The respondents produced Exhibits R1 and R2 and Exhibit R2, the way bill would show seal dated 4/1/09. According to RW1 the way bill is dated 3/1/09 and the reaching date at Pamba was 4/1/09. According to him he does not know whether the conductor had informed about the things and he does not know the matters directly. The conductor who was in the bus on the disputed day is the responsible and crucial witness to depose the things happened on 3/1/09 in the bus. It was the duty of respondents to examine him to depose the things. It was not done. According to respondents there was board on the bus as special service to Pamba and Swamy Saranam. But PW1 and PW2 do not have such a view. According to them there is no such board. So it was the duty of respondents to prove that there was such a board and the bus was run as a special service to Sabarimala. It is also the case of respondents that every buses having the board of FP will not have stop at Kodakara. So it is the duty of respondent to prove all these facts beyond doubt. According to PW1 he is stating all these things out of his experience. So it is proved that the respondents committed deficiency in service.
8. The complainant wanted to get back Rs.18/- the charge taken to Chalakudy. There is not at all any evidence about the station where he had got down from the bus. Whether he had got down at Kodakara or Chalakudy etc. are not proved. If he had travelled to Chalakudy he is bound to pay the charge to Chalakudy. He has no case that he had contacted with Police or some other authorities to get down from the bus. If there any quarrel happened it should be deposed and averred in the complaint. No such case is to PW1. So he is not entitled to get back Rs.18/- the ticket charge. But for the deficiency in service committed by respondents he is entitled to get compensation. We limit the compensation to Rs.2,500/-.
9. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation with costs sRs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the day 16th of December 2013.
