BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES <br /> REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> MDF/C.C.No.01/2008<br /> PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, BSc.,LLB., President,<br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, BA.,LLB., Member.<br /> 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, BSc., LLB., Member, <br /> ORDER<br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.01/2008<br /> Order dated this the 27th day of May 2008<br /> Sri.Yogananda,<br /> S/o M.Madaiah,<br /> Near water Tank,<br /> Kallahalli,<br /> MANDYA.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.Yogananda, Adv.,)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> …. Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Depot Manager,<br /> KSRTC,<br /> Mangalore Depot, II,<br /> Mangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. Depot Manager,<br /> KSRTC,<br /> Mandya Depot,<br /> MANDYA.<br /> <br /> (Sri.K.H.Umesh, Adv.,)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> … Opponents <br /> Date of complaint 03-01-2008<br /> Date of service of notice to<br /> opposite parties 22-01-2008<br /> Date of order 27-05-2008<br /> Total Period 04 months & 05 days<br /> Result The complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Party 1 to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- with cost of Rs.300/- to the Complainant within one month.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.Siddegowda,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh for deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is a practicing advocate and he had admitted his wife to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore for delivery on 22-12-2007. On the same at 8.00 p.m. the Complainant along with two luggage bags boarded KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2060 at KSRTC Bus Stop, Mandya. One Sukeshraju accompanied the Complainant along with the luggage. The Complainant placed one of the luggage bags on the left side of the luggage stand. Sukeshraj tried to place the luggage on the right side luggage board and since it was broken could not place it and hence placed the same over the lap of the Complainant who was sitting in seat No.12 on the left side row and Sukheshraj got down. The bus in which the Complainant was travelling was from Mangalore to Bangalore and it is a Semi Deluxe. Conductor issued ticket bearing No.130185 collecting bus fare of Rs.64/-. When the bus was moving from Mandya to Bangalore, though the Mysore - Bangalore road is in very good condition, the left side glass window began shaking as well as the broken luggage stand. Further the engine of the bus was making sound, which was unbearable. The Complainant had to travel with luggage on his lap. Due to unbearable sound the Complainant suffered severe headache and there was sever pain in the lower limb when he got down from the bus. Though the Complainant boarded Semi Deluxe bus with the hope of travelling comfortably, but the Complainant suffered mentally and physically and he had to take rest for two days. Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party without providing good facility in the Semi Deluxe bus. Therefore this complaint is filed for compensation. <br /> <br /> 3. Opposite Party No.1 has filed version stating that the Complainant had not travelled in bus No.KA.19-F-2060 from Mandya to Bangalore on the alleged date. On the other hand the said bus was actually travelling in route No.13/14 i.e. in between Mangalore to Bangalore via Hassan. There is no such complaint by anybody in the manner alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant has fabricated false facts in order to gain unjust claim if possible. Before commencement of journey Competent Authority will check every bus about its running condition and its fitness for use. Even if it is believed that the Complainant had travelled in the bus, there is no other complaints from any other co- passengers hence the Complainant had filed a false complaint and the question of granting compensation does not arise at all and there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4. During trail, the Complainant and one witness are examined as CW-1 and got marked Ex.C.1. On behalf of the Opposite Party 2 witnesses are examined as RW-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.R-1 to R-6.<br /> <br /> 5. We have heard both sides.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points that arise for our consideration are:-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the Complainant proves that he travelled in the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-19-F-2060 on 22-12-2008 from Mandya to Bangalore?<br /> <br /> 2) Whether the Complainant proves that the right side luggage stand was broken and left side window glass was shaking and engine is making severe sound?<br /> <br /> 3) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the compensation?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-<br /> <br /> POINT No.1:-<br /> <br /> It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is a practicing advocate at Mandya and it is also admitted that as per Ex.C.1 bus ticket, on 22-12-2007 the Complainant traveled from Mandya to Bangalore in Semi Deluxe bus belonging to the Opposite Party and the ticket No. is 130185.<br /> <br /> 8. The case of the Complainant is that he travelled in the bus bearing No.KA-19-F-2060 from Mandya to Bangalore but the Opposite Party had denied the same. Admittedly in the ticket, bus number or route number will not be mentioned. The Opposite Party has produced Ex.R-1 requisition letter of the particular day of the vehicle. As per this document KA-19-F-2060 has left the bus depot on 22-12-2007 it also contains the report of any defect in the vehicle. But it is not properly filled up at all. According to this document the vehicle left Mangalore at 7.00 p.m. to Hassan but the conductor or the driver of the said bus is not examined to prove the said document. It appears that when complaint copy was received, the Depot Manager got examined the vehicle and the charge man has issued Ex.R-2 to the Depot Manager stating the vehicle was examined and it was fit for travel and no complaints. But on the date of traveling i.e. on 22-12-2007 whether the bus was checked and report was submitted is not forthcoming. Though Ex.R-3 is produced but the driver the author of Ex.R-3 and the conductor, the author of Ex.R-4 is not examined. It is natural that they would give report just to support the department. Even though Opposite Party has produced Ex.R-6 but it does not contain the bus number at all and the date and therefore it is not helpful to the Opposite Party. Further Opposite Party has produced Ex.R-5 the details of the tickets issued and it is a computerised extract and it proves that Ex.C.1 bus ticket finds a place in this document, Ex.R-5 and Ex.C.1 was issued at 8.30 p.m. on 22-12-2007 collecting Rs.64/- but the route and the bus number is not mentioned in this Ex.R-5. Therefore it cannot be said that the Complainant has not travelled in the bus KA-19-F-2060 on 22-12-2007. The Opposite Party has not produced any document to prove that this bus number is not pertaining to Semi Deluxe bus in which the Complainant travelled. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has travelled in bus No.KA-19-F-2061 and it has relied upon Ex.R-6 and R-6(b) entry. But this does not contain any bus number, the date of traveling and hence it is not useful to Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 9. According to the Complainant he had to travel in the said bus with his luggage on lap since the right side luggage stand was broken and further left side window glass was shaking and they were causing sound. When the bus was moving the engine sound was also not bearable. There is no reason to suspect the evidence of the Complainant and being an advocate, we cannot accept that he has created the false complaint just for the sake of publicity or to get illegal gain from the Opposite Party. Admittedly, Bangalore Mysore Road is recently formed and it is in good condition. Though numbers of comfortless situations are experienced by the passengers, they would not go to the extent of making complaint. We would like to mention that in number of cases we have noticed that the window glass broken will not be replaced. Further the window glass will not move in some cases and the luggage stand broken will not be attended though staff was meant for it. Even the bus seats will not be cleaned at the time of handing over the bus from the depot to the driver. There is no creation of things by the Complainant but actually he has narrated what he has experienced. Therefore there is no reason to suspect the case and evidence of the Complainant. Therefore Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service in not properly maintaining the bus and the complaint suffered inconvenience and therefore he is entitled to the compensation. <br /> <br /> In the result we proceed to pass the following;<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Party 1 to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- with cost of Rs.300/- to the Complainant within one month.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of May 2008).<br /> <br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> <br /> (MEMBER) (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Msr*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />