Kerala

Kollam

CC/05/37

Thanka Rajan.M.V., Mullavalappil Veedu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C.,Transport Bhavan,Oths - Opp.Party(s)

G.Vasavan

29 Jan 2008

ORDER


KOLLAM
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/37

Thanka Rajan.M.V., Mullavalappil Veedu
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C.,Transport Bhavan,Oths
The Station Master, K.S.R.T.C.,Karunagappally
The Station Master, K.S.R.T.C.,Kollam
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI 2. RAVI SUSHA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint for getting back Rs.90/- as the balance Ticket amount and for other reliefs. It is contended in the complaint as follows: On 23.8.2004 the complainant boarded a Super Fast Bus at Karunagappally and alighted at Kollam. Complainant gave a hundred rupee note to the bus conductor. Instead of giving balance amount, the conductor noted the balance amount of Rs.90/- at the top of the ticket. Conductor has not given the balance amount. Hence the complainant has sent a letter to the 1st opp.party . But the complainant has neither received any reply nor any relief. Hence he filed this complaint for getting relief. Opp. Parties filed version contending that the complainant has either not stated the timing of the bus, the bus No. or the bonnet No. of the bus. He has not even cared to state the alleged ticket No. in the complaint. The averment that he had sent a letter on the same day itself to the Managing Director of K.S.R.T. Corporation at his Thiruvananthapuram address is a vague and dubious statement .Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant is examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exts.P1 and P2. Opp.parties have not adduced evidence. The point that would arise for consideration are: [i] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party. [ii] Cost and compensation. Point [I] & [ii] Though the opp.parties filed a version, they did not make any earnest attempt to prove what was stated in the version. The opp.parties did not care to adduce any evidence at all. In the circumstances, the Forum is constrained to accept the case of the complainant. Hence the opp.parties are deficient in service by not giving back the balance ticket amount to the complainant by the conductor who is an employee of opp.parties. The complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.90/- as the ticket balance to the complainant. The opp.parties are further directed to pay Rs.250/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : Sd/- ADV. RAVI SUSHA: Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Thankarajan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Ticket P2. Notice dated 7.9.2004




......................K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI
......................RAVI SUSHA