DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 23^rd day of August 2024

CC.93/2019

Complainant

Leo Paul,

Nadhanail House,

Kizhakum Muri (PO),

Kakkodi, Kozhikode.

Opposite Parties

DTO, K.S.R.T.C,

Mavoor road,

Indiragandhi Road,

Kozhikode – 673 001.

(By Adv. Sreya.K.V)

                                                                             ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT  

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The son of the complainant is working in the CRPF in Jharkhand. In the year 2018 he came to the native place availing leave. He was expected to join duty on expiry of leave on 17/10/2018 at 12 noon. For that purpose, he had reserved an air ticket from Bangalore to Jharkhand for journey on 16/10/2018 at 7.30 pm. For reaching Bangalore, he had reserved a seat in the KSRTC bus from Kozhikode to Bangalore starting at 8.30 am on 16/10/2018.

3. But when he reached the KSRTC bus stand for boarding the bus, he was surprised to see that the bus was not plying due to strike of the employees. Though he contacted the station master, the police officers and the striking employees, he did not get any help. Hence he had to hire a taxi to reach  Bangalore as he had to join duty in time. Even then he missed the booked flight and he had to proceed to his unit by the next flight spending additional expenses. He could report for duty only at 4.30 pm instead of 12 noon on 17/10/2018. He was put to immense mental agony, besides monetary loss due to the deficiency of service on the part of the KSRTC authorities. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein all the allegations and claims made against the KSRTC are denied. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not produced any documents authorising him by his son to file the complaint. On 16/10/2018 the employees union of the KSRTC was on strike and so services were hindered. The interstate bus service could not be operated in time. The interstate service to Bangalore could be started only at 13 hours on that day. The passengers who had reserved seats were informed about the delay by the conductor concerned over phone. Moreover, arrangements were made for refund of the booking amount. The service was delayed due to reasons beyond the control of the KSRTC which had sustained huge loss due to the strike. The strike was held without the permission of the KSRTC management. The allegation that the son of the complainant could not reach Bangalore airport in time due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party is false and hence denied. In fact, the complainant’s son could not reach the airport in time as the taxi hired by him was in traffic jam. The air ticket of the journey is not produced before this Commission. Nothing is produced to show that the complainant’s son could report for duty only at 4.30 pm on 17/10/2018. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.      
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

      2.Reliefs and costs.

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1to A3 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let by the opposite party.
7. Heard.
8. Point No 1:   The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The specific allegation is that the KSRTC bus in which the complainant’s son had reserved seat for his journey on 16/10/2018 from Kozhikode to Bangalore was not operated in the scheduled time, as a result of which, he had to hire taxi from Kozhikode to Bangalore airport to catch the flight. It is also alleged that he missed the booked flight and had to travel to Jharkhand in another flight spending additional expenses and even then he could not report for duty in Jharkhand in time. The claim is for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and monetary loss.
9. PW1, who is none other than the complainant, has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. PW1 has asserted that he is representing his son who is not available in station in connection with his employment. The complainant has produced the power of attorney executed by his son. The power of attorney holder can file consumer complaint on behalf of the complainant. Ext A1 is the copy of the e-ticket/reservation voucher issued by the KSRTC, Ext A2 is the copy of the tourist taxi receipt and Ext A3 is the copy of the flight ticket.
10. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, we are of the view that the grievance of the complainant is genuine. It is admitted by the opposite party in the written version that the bus started journey after a long delay due to strike by the employees. If the service was delayed, nothing prevented the KSRTC authorities to give prior information to the passengers who had reserved seats so that they can make alternate arrangements to reach the destination in time. The case tried to be set up by the opposite party is that the concerned conductor had intimated the matter to the passengers over phone. But there is absolutely nothing in evidence to show that the complainant was informed about the delay. If the complainant was informed in advance, he would not have reached the bus station in order to board the bus. Moreover, admittedly the employees were on strike and naturally it is difficult to believe that the striking employees would inform the passengers over telephone about their strike and the consequent delay in the departure of the bus from the station. Nothing is produced by the opposite party to substantiate the contention that such prior intimation was given.  The opposite party has not adduced any evidence. The opposite party did not file affidavit to prove the contents of the version filed. The conductor concerned, who allegedly intimated the passengers, was not cited as a witness and examined before this Commission by the opposite party. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no substance in the contention that prior intimation was given to the passengers who had reserved seat about the delay in departure of the bus.
11. Equally, nothing is produced by the opposite party to show that they had made arrangements for getting refund of the booking charges to the complainant. No document is produced by the opposite party to show that refund was made to the complainant. 
12. It goes without saying that the son of the complainant was put to intense mental agony and monetary loss due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party. PW1 has stated that his son had to hire taxi from Kozhikode to Bangalore. Ext A2 is the tourist taxi receipt produced by the complainant. Ext A2 is not disputed or challenged by the opposite party. Ext A2 shows that the taxi fare was Rs. 10,000/-. The fact that the complainant’s son had to hire taxi is rather admitted by the opposite party in paragraph 9 of the written version.
13. The complainant has a case that his son missed the flight and had to travel in another flight meeting additional expenses and even than he could not report for duty in the CRPF unit in time. But this could not be substantiated by the complainant. The flight ticket in which the complainant’s son travelled is not produced. Nothing is produced to show that there was failure to report for duty in time.
14. From the above discussion, what emerges is that there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which has resulted in intense mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- will reasonable compensation in this case.         
15. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.93/2019 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.

c) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 35,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

d) No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 23^th day of August, 2024.

Date of Filing: 19/03/2019

      Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                                   

PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                MEMBER                               

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 -  Copy of the e-ticket/reservation voucher issued by the KSRTC.

Ext A2 -  Copy of the tourist taxi receipt.

Ext A3 -  Copy of the flight ticket.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

NIL

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  - Leo Paul  (Complainant).

Witnesses for the opposite party

NIL

    Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                                   

PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                MEMBER      

                                 True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                      Sd/- 

                                                                                                                           Assistant Registrar.