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. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 265/08 DATED 23-10-2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant N.R.Siddaraju, S/o Late Rachaiah, R/at No.2095/1, 7th Cross, K Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.B.K.Mohan., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.N.P.Ranjan., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 28.08.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 22.09.2008<br /> Date of order : 23.10.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint of the complainant filed against the opposite party with a simple case of deficiency attributed to the opposite party KSRTC, which is a Transport Corporation alleging that the opposite party had issued reservation ticket for himself and his two family members for traveling from Mysore to Dharmastala on 08.08.2008 showing platform No.1 from where the bus departs at 6.30 am, but on the date of journey when he was waiting for the bus well in advance at platform no.1 he did not find the bus at the said platform and then became paniky and on enquiring in the bus stand with the concerned authorities he was informed that the bus departed from platform no.5 and it had left the bus stand at 6.30 am and therefore he was denied of the journey at the schedule hours till 8.30 am until the opposite party made an alternative arrangement and thereby stated that the opposite party has caused deficiency in their service and as the result his scheduled programme performing a religious ceremony at Dharmastala on 08.08.2008 was defeated and he had suffer loss and mental agony and thereby has prayed for awarding damages of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and to award costs.<br /> 2. The opposite party entered appearance through his advocate filed version admitting to had issued a reservation ticket to the complainant for traveling from Mysore to Dharmastala on the schedule day and also showing the places of departure of the bus as platform no.1 and has also admitted that the schedule bus departed on that day from platform no.5 at the schedule hour and that the complainant could not travel in the scheduled bus and in he having had arranged to send the complainant and his family members in another bus at 8.30 am. The opposite party besides this has contended as if the complainant being a qualified person should have listen to the announcement made by them in the bus stand regarding departure of buses, the timings and further that platform no.5 is little away from the platform no.1 and that the complainant should have been diligent to find out from where the bus departs and thus the opposite party alleging carelessness to the complainant, has further stated that due to computer software mistake the departure platform no.1 is got entered into reservation ticket issued to the complainant instead of platform no.5 and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating what he has said in the complaint. The opposite party has not filed his affidavit evidence, but another person shown to be probably a traffic inspector has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what has been averred in the version. The opposite party has not assigned any reasons in he himself not filing affidavit evidence nor he has issued any authorization in favour of any persons or in favour of the person who has filed affidavit to file affidavit on his behalf. The complainant has produced the original reservation ticket issued by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complaint proves that the opposite party has caused deficiency in their service in issuing reservation ticket for a journey showing the platform no.1 as departure platform and in departing the bus from platform no.5?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<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:- As indicated above, the opposite party has admitted who had issued reservation ticket to the complainant showing platform no.1 as the place from where the Dharmastala bound bus departs on the scheduled journey day. The opposite party has also admitted that the bus departed from platform no.5 and did not depart from platform no.1. But, stated that due to computer software mistake platform was wrongly entered in the ticket issued to the complainant, but the opposite party has not come with any acceptable explanation as how that mistake had occurred, it is not their case that the computer itself developed software without manual intervention. Even then it is not that the opposite party had issued ticket to the complainant alone and had not issued any such reservation tickets to anybody since all these days so as to say that they could not apply their mind to rectify it. It is in the absence of tenable and acceptable explanation in this regard from the opposite party their defense that it was a software mistake cannot be believed. <br /> 7. Coming to the other defense of the opposite party that the complainant is a person with knowledge should have listen to the announcement made in the bus depot regarding departure time and platform and he could have verified from where the bus departs when he did not find bus in platform no.1 and that platform no.5 being little away from platform no.1 is concerned, the defense of the opposite party becomes redundant because once the authority who is competent issue reservation ticket issues a ticket assuring in writing the time and place of departure, there is no need for the traveler to further verify on that issue. When the passenger comes to the bus stop even well in advance and reaches the departure time and if finds no bus is ready to leave his serious attention would be on the buses coming to that bus stop and leaving that bus stop and his attention in our view will not get diverted either to the announcement or the buses departing from different stop or platforms. One should understand the anxiety of a passenger who has reserved the ticket when he is waiting with his family members at a particular platform waiting for the bus and when the bus do not arrive or leave the platform at a schedule time. Under those circumstances, the affected passenger will always be worrying about the busses coming to that platform and leaving the platform and is only concerned about it and will not bother as to what goes on else where. Therefore, the opposite party by putting burden on the complainant that he should have been diligent cannot try to get away from the deficient service they have rendered. Therefore, it is manifest that the opposite party has caused deficiency in the service in issuing ticket even according to his is misleading. The opposite party under these circumstances cannot escape his liability of accounting to the complainant, as such we hold that the opposite party has caused deficiency in their service and caused hindrance to the journey of the complainant and mental agony, which should be compensated.<br /> 8. Admittedly, the complainant was sent by the opposite party in their another bus to Dharmastala, of course at 8.30 am instead of 6.30 am and there has been 2 hours delay in the journey period. The contention of the complainant that they had planned to perform religious function at Dharmastala and to come back to Mysore on the same day, but because of this delay they could not complete it and they were forced to stay back till next day, as the result they suffered damages has not been controverted. Therefore, while quantifying the damages suffered by the complainant we have to look into the additional expenditure that the complainant had to undergo and mental agony. As such, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for his inconvenience and mental agony within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he 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/- being the cost of this complaint.<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 23rd October 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />