Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is an advocate, who is practicing at Pathanamthitta.  He used to travel occasionally in KSRTC buses between Adoor to Pathanamthitta.  It is contented that the opposite parties are collecting a bus fare of Rs.36/- from Adoor to Pathanamthitta in KURTC Volvo AC bus as ticket fare and for return journey collecting a fare of Rs.39/- in the same class of vehicle in the same route.  In order to prove this fact the complainant produced two set of KSRTC ticket before the Forum.  According to him the difference of the ticket charge for the same route is an unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint for a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, cost etc. etc.

 3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite parties received notice and opposite party 1 entered appearance and filed their version.  Though the 2^nd opposite party received the notice of the Forum 2^nd opposite party failed to appear before the Forum.  Hence 2^nd opposite party is declared exparte by this Forum.

4.  The version of 1^st opposite party is as follows:  According to the 1^st opposite party the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  There is no unfair trade practice on the part of KSRTC and it is highly objectionable and  unwarranted.  The opposite party admitted the averment with regard to the variation of to and fro ticket of KSRTC between Pathanamthitta and Adoor.  It is also contended that there is a difference of ticket charge in ordinary service buses and for other class of vehicles.     

5.  Apart from the above version the opposite party filed an additional version as follows: According to this opposite party the complainant has an option to avail the class of service in which he intent to travel.  The opposite party quoted section 18 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1960 it reads, “Provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed as imposing on a Corporation, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any Court or Tribunal to which it would not otherwise be subject”.  It is further contended that KSRTC is a public utility service to provide efficient, adequate and economical service to the benefit of the public.  The bus charge is fixed on the basis of the fare stage allotted by the Government in time to time.  The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as contended by the complainant.  Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he was examined as PW1. At the time of chief examination of PW1 Ext. A1 to A4 were also marked. Ext. A1 series is the original 4 tickets issued by 1^st opposite party. Ext. A2 series is the attested photocopy of the Ext.A1.  Ext. A3 is the copy of a paper publication.  Ext. A4 is the Fare chart of KURTC obtained from web site. On the other side, the opposite party examined the Pathanamthitta District coordinator of KURTC bus as DW1. DW1 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.

8.  Point No. 1 : The 1^st opposite party in this case contended that this case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.   When we appreciate the evidence of this case it is proved that the complainant he who depend a KURTC bus for his to and fro journey between Adoor and Pathanamthitta.  It is also proved that he paid a consideration for his to and fro journey to opposite party 1.  It is also pertinent to see that KURTC services are part and parcel of KSRTC bus services.  The complainant in this case depend KURTC bus for his journey and he paid the whole consideration for the journey.  Therefore, it can be easily inferred that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 found accordingly.

9. Point No.2 and 3 : For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider the Point No.2 and 3 together.   When we appreciate the evidence adduced by the PW1 it can be seen that PW1 relied KURTC bus service for his journey from Adoor to Pathanamthitta and for it return.  In order to prove his journey he produced Ext.A1 the original bus ticket issued by KSRTC for his journey.  Ext. A2 series is the certified copy of Ext.A1.  When we refer Ext.A2 series the difference of ticket fare from Pathanamthitta to Adoor and from Adoor to Pathanamthitta can be seen as Rs. 39/- and Rs.36/- respectively on 08/03/2016 and 09/03/2016.  The same ticket rate can be seen on 05/03/16 and 11/03/16 as per Ext. A2 series.  Ext. A3 is a press release of Malayala Manorama dated 06/04/2016.  The heading of that publication is “ലോ ഫ്ലോറിന് രണ്ടു നിരക്ക് കെ എസ് ആർ ടി സി വിശദീകരണം”. In the central portion of Ext.A3 it reads, “കേന്ദ്ര സർക്കാർ കെ യു ആർ ടി സിക്കു നൽകിയ നിർദ്ദേശം അനുസരിച്ച് ലോഫ്ലോർ   ബസുകളിൽ ഫാസ്റ്റ്, സൂപ്പർ ഫാസ്റ്റ് വേർതിരിച്ചുള്ള ബോർഡ് വയ്ക്കാൻ പറ്റില്ല. അതിനാൽ ഇവ പെട്ടെന്ന് തിരിച്ചറിയാൻ പറ്റില്ല. ഇതു പോരായ്മയാണ്.”.  If we reads the whole portion of this paper release it is to be understood that the KSRTC is operating this Low floor bus as ‘fast’ and ‘superfast’ without affixing any details with regard to its difference.  PW1 the complainant produced a fare chart which is marked as Ext. A4 in this case.  As per Ext. A4 for AC Buses the minimum fare is Rs.15/- for the first 5 Kms. and for non AC buses Rs. 8/- for the first 5 Kms. and 70 paise for each additional kilometer.  Here also it can be seen that the differences of fast and superfast are also not shown in Ext. A4.  As discussed earlier, one Rajan Achary who is the Pathanamthitta District coordinator of KURTC bus is examined as DW1.  As per his deposition it is seen that the fare stage and fare revision are always decided by the Government of Kerala as KSRTC is functioning as per the Road Transport Corporation Act 1960.  DW1 deposed in chief “Ext. A1 series ൽ  കാമിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള 139223 – mw നമ്പർ ടിക്കറ്റ്  KURTC സൂപ്പർ ഫാസ്റ്റായി ഓടുന്ന AC ബസിലെ Ticket ആണ്. ആയതിൻറെ നിരക്ക് രൂപ  36/- ടിക്കറ്റ് ചാർജ്ജും രൂപ . 3 cess ഉം ഉള്പ്പെടെ രൂപ  39/- ആണ്. അതുപോലെ  Ticket നമ്പർ 213169 þ ആയി കൊടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളത് ഓർഡിനറി class ൻറേതാണ് ആയതിന് രൂപ  34/þ ടിക്കറ്റ് ചാർജ്ജും രൂപ 2/þ cess ഉം ആണ്..

10. As per the testimony of DW1 in chief, it is also clear that the opposite party charged different bus fare rate from Pathanamthitta to Adoor route and viceversa.  The question to be considered is whether there is any justification for the difference of ticket rate imposed to PW1?  When we peruse the whole evidence of this case it can be seen that the 1^st opposite party has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the difference of the ticket rate imposed to PW1 is either sustainable or justifiable.  It is also admitted that the KURTC Buses are allotted to opposite party by the Central Government with a direction to ply the bus without showing any difference in classes.  If so the 1^st opposite party failed to produce any substantial evidence to prove this fact.  We do admit that if there is any direction to this low floor buses as stated above, no doubt the KURTC should operate this class of vehicle on identical charge.  Here also the 1^st opposite party failed to do so.  However, we too admitted that the KSRTC bus services are operated for the interest of general public and it is owned by the Government of Kerala.

                   11.  In now a days it is true that the KSRTC is struggling for its existence. Considering all this fact it is not fair on our part to see the opposite parties deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to an upper level.  However, when we peruse the evidence of this case, it is proved that the imposing of different bus charges in a similar class of vehicle on the same route is seen not justifiable.  The opposite parties failed to convince us to prove their contention in this aspect.  Hence we find that the complainant is succeeded to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties against the complainant.  As discussed earlier, even if the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties are proved in this case, considering the importance of a public undertaking like KSRTC, we decided to take a lienient view against the opposite parties.  Hence Point No. 2 and 3 found accordingly.

                   In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties are hereby directed to operate the KURTC service from Pathanamthitta-Adoor and viceversa by an identical charge within 30 days of receipt of this order and issue a copy of this implementation order to this Forum.  If the opposite parties are fails to comply this order the complainant is at liberty to realize Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from the opposite parties as compensation for non-compliance of this order with 10% interest from the date of order.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties are also directed to pay 10% interest to the cost from the date of order onwards.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2017.

                                                                                           (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Rajeev K. Pillai

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 series :  Original 4 tickets issued by 1^st opposite party.

A2 series :  Photocopy of the Ext.A1.

A3 :  Original copy of paper publication. 

A4 :  Fare chart of KURTC obtained from web site.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  N.A. Rajan Achary

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                               (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Rajeev K. Pillai, Kuttikkattu, Konnamankara,

                   Adoor P.O, Pathanamthitta, Pin – 691 523.                                                     (2) The Managing Director, KSRTC, Transport Bhavan,

          East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 001.

               (3) The District Transport Officer, KSRTC Depot, Pathanamthitta,

                    Pin - 689 645.

               (4)  The Stock File.