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 454/09 DATED 08.02.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant R.Mallikarjunappa,<br /> 154/2, Bhagya Nilay, 3rd Main, <br /> 6th Cross, Lokanayaka Nagar Hebbal Main Road, Mysore-16.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. H.P.Vishakant, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Divisional Controller,<br /> KSRTC, Tumkur Division,<br /> Tumkur District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. G.P.Chandrashekara, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 08.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.01.2010<br /> Date of order : 08.02.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTHS 4 DAYS<br /> <br /> <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 against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to pay compensation of Rs.54,000/- towards negligence and carelessness in the transport service.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, on 13.11.2009 he boarded the bus of the opposite party bearing No.KA-06-F-206 at Mysore Bus stand at about 17.12 hours, and purchased the ticket to go to Tumkur. The bus left the bus stand at 17.15 hours. The bus reached Gubbi at about 20.40 hours. After 5 mints halt, the bus was to proceed further to Tumkur. But, the conductor and the driver of the said bus addressed the passengers of the bus that the bus is not going to Tumkur and it is to halt at Gubbi Depot. Also, they told that, there is another ordinary bus to go to Tumkur and ordered the passengers to alight the earlier bus and board the bus bearing No.KA-06-F-303. In the earlier bus, there were about 15 to 25 passengers waiting for onward journey. When all of them sought clarification for change of the bus, there was no answer from the driver and the conductor. The earlier bus in which the complainant and others traveled, was in very good running condition and also health condition of the driver and the conductor was good. The driver and the conductor behaved rudely with the passengers when they questioned regarding change of the bus. Said passengers were forced to alight and all of them were pushed into another bus, which was full of the passengers. No single seat was available for sitting. Also, there was no protection from the cold wind and the bus had no window pane. It was raining. The complainant being 63 years old, B.P. and diabetic patient made humble request to the conductor, but it went in vein. The bus in which the complainant was traveling from Mysore was express one, whereas the other bus at Gubbi was ordinary one. The express bus was to reach Tumkur at 21 hours, but the other bus being ordinary, reached at 21.45 hours, late by 45 mints. The complainant had to meet his brother at Tumkur, but because of the late arrival of the bus, complainant did not meet his brother and the land deal did not take place. It resulted loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version has denied certain allegations made in the complaint and it is contended that, when the bus from Mysore reached Gubbi bus stand, the head lights were damaged. The driver of the bus phoned to the officer concerned by name Prabhakar. He instructed the driver to send the passengers in another bus. Accordingly, the driver and the conductor helped the passengers who had come from Mysore to board the another bus and there was no quarrel or reaction regarding change of the bus. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his claim and has produced certain documents. On the other and, the Divisional Controller of the opposite party has filed his affidavit wherein the facts with reference to the version, are stated. For the opposite party along with memo, explanations of the Depo Manager, Conductor and driver of the bus which had left from Mysore, are filed. We have heard the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the entire records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The fact that, the complainant boarded the bus at Mysore to go to Tumkur and traveled in the said bus after purchasing ticket, has been stated by the complainant in his affidavit. In the version, the opposite party has not denied it. Though, in the version opposite party has not denied or disputed that the complainant traveled in the said bus, the Divisional Controller of the opposite party in the second paragraph of the affidavit has stated that, the complainant might have misused the ticket purchased by other passengers. Stating so in the affidavit, the opposite party intend to dispute that, the complainant traveled in the said bus. It is well settled legal position that, in the absence of the pleading, the evidence need not be looked into. Moreover, the Divisional Controller is not a competent witness to say that the complainant did not travel in the bus. Moreover, quite contrary and inconsistent statement is made by the Divisional Controller in the affidavit in the said paragraph itself stating that, it is not within his knowledge that the complainant boarded the said bus at Mysore. Hence, at one breath, the witness pleads ignorance that the complainant traveled in the said bus and quite contrary to it, made futile attempt to dispute that the complainant traveled in the said bus contending that the complainant might have misused the ticket purchased by other passengers. This tendency and attitude of the witness of the opposite party establish that, the opposite party is not ready to admit true facts and it’s aim is only to deny the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. The claim of the complainant is that, the bus in which he was traveling from Mysore reached Gubbi and at Gubbi he and other passengers made to change and board another bus, is admitted. For good and justifiable reasons, if the passengers are made to travel in another bus and proper service is provided, then they may not be any grievance. In the case on hand, the opposite party contend that, at Gubbi bus stand head lights of the earlier bus were damaged and hence it became necessary to ask the passengers to change the bus and travel in another bus.<br /> <br /> 9. In the version, opposite party has contended that, the driver of the earlier bus reported regarding damage of head lights to the officer concerned by name Prabhakar who directed the driver and the conductor to send the passengers in another bus. To prove the contention that the head lights of the bus were damaged, there is no acceptable evidence. Neither the driver nor the conductor or Prabhakar, have filed their affidavit. Moreover, as submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant, any number of affidavits can be filed, but the truth of the facts stated shall have to be ascertained. In the case on hand, apart from the fact that, no affidavits of the driver or conductor or Prabhakar are filed, the best evidence to substantiate the damage to the head lights is, job card. When as contended by the opposite party the head lights were damaged, same must have been replaced or repaired. Opposite party is the State Road Transport Corporation. In respect of repair or replacement of the head lights, necessarily there must be job card and other documents. The opposite party has not at all produced those available documents. Not only that the opposite party voluntarily did not produce those documents, but the opposite party did not produce the job card in spite of the notice of the complainant to produce the same. Under the circumstances, adverse inference shall have to be drawn. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that, the opposite party has failed to prove that because of the head lights were damaged, the bus did not move ahead.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has alleged that, the subsequent bus in which they were forced to board, already was full of passengers and the passengers from earlier bus had no seats. It is stated by the complainant, he is 63 old years and had certain ailments. Also, he has stated, the subsequent bus had no window pane and as there was raining, he suffered. Also, grievance of the complainant is that, the earlier bus was express one and the subsequent one was ordinary. For these reason, the subsequent bus reached Tumkur 45 mints late. Though, an attempt is made for the opposite party is contend that, the subsequent bus reached Tumkur at 21.15 hours, to prove that fact, there is no cogent evidence. To establish this fact, way bill of that bus and other available registers regarding movement of the bus could have been produced. For non-production of the same, no reasons are assigned. Considering the facts, evidence and the discussion made here before, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> 11. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is partly in affirmative.<br /> 12. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of the complaint, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 3. Further, the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. 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 8th February 2010)<br /> <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 /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />