IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 42/09 DATED 09.04.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant N.Ganesh Prabhu, <br /> S/o R.Nanjungegowda, D.No.1401, 5th Cross, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.H.N.Venkatesh., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Divisional Controller, Mysore Rural Division, K.S.R.T.C. Bannimantap, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.G.P.Chandrashekara., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.02.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 03.03.2009<br /> Date of order : 09.04.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party in brief is, that with an intention of traveling from Sathyamangalam of Tamilnadu to Mysore on 24.11.2008, he had taken a reservation ticket from the opposite party corporation by paying Rs.79/-. That on 24.11.2008, the bus had to departure from Sathyamangalam at 12.40 in the midnight, therefore he went to Sathyamangalam bus stand on the same day at 12.30 midnight, but bus did not arrive at the bus stand till 2.00 am. Then he enquired in the bus stand and learnt that the bus left Sathyamangalam bus stand at 11.30 pm on 23.11.2008, therefore he had to travel in another bus. That he was a businessman doing business as a commission agent in potato and onion and as he could not come to his place he suffered loss in his business on 24.11.2008 and therefore he gave a representation to the opposite party on 02.12.2008 seeking damages, but the opposite party has given untenable reply on 08.12.2008. Thereafter, he also gave another representation on 19.12.2008, but the opposite party did not respond and therefore has prayed for awarding damages of Rs.75,000/- towards the loss of his business and mental agony.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party has entered appearance through his advocate and admitted to had issued a reservation ticket to the complainant for traveling in their bus on 24.11.2008 at 12.40 in the midnight and further stated that the bus left Coimbutore at 10.45 pm on 24.11.2008, but on the way at Pulliampatty there was a road accident, as the result vehicles had been stopped affecting movement of vehicles and they got clearance and came to Sathyamangalam one hour late at 1.00 am, waited for the complainant for about 10 mints, as he did not board then they left Sathyamangalam bus stand at 1.10 am and denying that the bus had left on 23.11.2008 at 11.40 pm and denying other allegations of the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint by further stating to had replied the first representation of the complainant.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced copy of the letters he had addressed to opposite party, a Xerox copy of the reservation ticket and reply of the opposite party. The opposite party has produced the original reservation ticket, reports of the driver and conductor of the bus, and reply sent to the complainant with a copy of the log sheet. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party ahs caused deficiency in their service by not maintaining the time schedule in picking up the complainant, the passenger as per the time schedule from Sathyamangalam bus stand as mentioned in the reservation ticket and thereby caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The opposite party has admitted to had issued a reservation ticket in favour of the complainant for him to travel from Sathyamangalam to Mysore on 24.11.2008 at 00.40 hours that is at 12.40 midnight giving it as a departure time from Sathyamangalam. The contention of the complainant that the opposite party’s bus did not reach Sathyamangalam bus stand on 24.11.2008 in time and that there was breach of time schedule is admitted by the opposite party, but contended as if on 24.11.2008 while the opposite party bus was coming from Coimbatore towards Sathyamangalam, there had been a road accident at a place called Pulliampatty which led to traffic jam and took one hour time to get it cleared and to reach Sathyamangalam and have stated the bus reached at 1.00 am on 24.11.2008 and left after 10 mints after waiting for the complainant and finding that the complainant was not there. But, the complainant has sworn to an affidavit as if he had waited at Sathyamangalam bus stand till 2.00 am as the bus did not arrive he traveled in a different bus.<br /> 7. The opposite party in order to substantiate their contention that the road accident contributed to delay of one hour for their bus to arrive at Sathyamanagalm bus stand have produced report of the driver and conductor of the bus and another report of the Depot Manager and have also produced log sheet of the bus dated 23.11.2008. As could be seen from the reports of the driver, conductor and Depot Manager, they do not show any indication of these reports having had been given to the concerned Depot Manager by the driver and conductor and the Depot Manager to the Divisional Controller. Because, if the driver and conductor had given such reports to the Depot Manager as addressed in these letters, the Depot Manager should have received then with his initials or some one on his behalf must have received those reports with their initials, but we do not find any such initials of the person to whom those reports were given. Similarly, the report of the Depot Manager addressed to Divisional Controller also do not bear any signature of the person to whom it was addressed or of any person who had received it on behalf of the Divisional Controller. Further, it could be seen that there had been delay in the bus in question reaching Sathyamangalam on 24.11.2008. Whereas the driver and conductor shown to have given their reports on 03.12.2008. If there had been such a delay in the bus reaching a destination and the depot the reports must have been given on the same day and reached the Depo tManager. Similarly, the report of then Depot Manager addressed to the Divisional Controller is of dated 05.12.2008 as written at the top of the letter and the bottom the letter date is shown as 04.11.2008. As already pointed out by us, as there is no proof of having had given these letters to the authorities concerned, the chances of their preparation at later cannot be ruled out. Coming to the log sheet required to be maintained by the driver, it do not contain the details like all place of departure and arrival. Further there is an entry in this log sheet to show as if there had been a road accident at Pulliampatty. This is a Xerox copy of the log sheet. If the driver had given this report as indicated in the log sheet, how did he give his report to the Depot Manager on 03.12.2008 is not understandable. Added to this, the driver found to have not recorded the time of arrival of the bus at Sathyamangalam bus stand and its departure. Therefore, the bus came to Sathyamangalam bus stand at 1.00 am is not substantiated. Further, the opposite party has also not placed any materials to prove that there had been a road accident which led to road block. Even assuming that such an incident had taken place and that was cause for the delay of the bus arrival at Sathyamangalam, then what would be the remedy or fake of the passangers who were waiting at Sathyamangalam Bus stand is not thought of by the opposite party. The opposite party must bear in mind that whenever they issue reservation tickets to the passengers for boarding their buses from a particular destination at particular time it is the duty of the opposite party to maintain the time schedule as far as possible and if anything goes wrong or intervenes in maintaining the same schedule, the opposite party should think of addressing that situation by way of sending intimation to the bus stand where the reservation passengers are waiting. No doubt, intimation or communication to the next bus stand or passengers some time may not be feasible or practicable if an accident had taken place or road blockage had taken place or any mechanical sudden problem in the place where the driver or conductor will have no access to communication or communications to be forwarded to the next bus stand for announcement to the waiting passengers. But in the instant case it is not the contention of the opposite party that there was no communication system or facilities for sending intimation to Sathyamangalam bus stand informing the complainant about the incident and delay in arrival of the bus. If the opposite party had pleaded so, the Forum could have take a note of it and considered it as a mitigating circumstances and the delay was beyond the control of the opposite party or his crew. In the absence of such helplessness expressed or pleaded by the opposite party it can be conveniently be held that the opposite party crew should have sent intimation to Sathyamangalam bus stand about the delay in arrival to make a public announcement. The opposite party it appears has not though of it, therefore, the opposite party corporation after issuing reservation tickets like this just cannot wash of their hands by pleading their helplessness in this way. This situation shall have to be addressed properly by the opposite party and therefore under these circumstances, we hold that the opposite party has caused deficiency in their service in not reaching their bus at the schedule time at Sathyamangalam to pick up the complainant as promised which in our view is nothing but deficiency in their service.<br /> 8. The complainant has claimed damages of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of his business and mental agony, Forums are not meant for compensate a consumer for his loss of earning or profit but meant only to compensate the consumers for deficiency in the service, they have suffered. Taking into consideration of all these facts in their totality we propose to award damages of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and thus we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards damages to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 9th April 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />