Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/25/2018

Mr.M.Jaikumar S/o.R.Murgesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.D.Elangovan S/o.Dayalan Sri Bhagyalakshmi Travel Services - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Mahesh wariah

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.01.2018

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL PRESIDENT

 

THIRU.D. BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc., B.L., :   MEMBER – I

 

TUESDAY  THE 23^rd   DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.25/2018

 

 

Mr.M.Jaikumar,

S/o R.Murugesan,

No-189, D,Yadaval Street,

Adambakkam,

Chennai – 600 088.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Mr.D.Elangovan,

S/o.G.Dayalan,

Sri Bhagyalakshmi Travel Services,

New # 289, (Old # 124),

Purasawalkam High Road,

Kellys (Near Abirami Mega Mall),

Chennai – 600 010.

 

2.The Manager,

Sri Balaji Travels,

Shop No.51 Mattuthavani Omni Bus Stand,

Madurai – 17.

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 08.03.2018

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.Maheshwariah

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                        : Ex – parte (24.07.2018)

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                        : Ex – parte (17.09.2018)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.600/- towards ticket charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards compensation for mental harassment  and  with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.TN 02 6661 (Volvo AC Semi Sleeper) running travel agency in the name of Sri Bhagyalakshmi Travel Services and involved in day to day affairs of the Said Omni travels. The 2^nd opposite party is the agent who is authorized to sell ticket for the 1^st opposite party travel company. The 2^nd opposite party informed that 1^st opposite party Travel company is providing with better comfort, safe, quick and reliable travel service and hence complainant booked ticket from the 2^nd opposite party for travelling from Madurai to Chennai for travelling in the 1^st opposite party travels company bus. The complainant boarded the 1^st opposite party Travels company Bus bearing No.TN 02 AY 6661 (Volvo AC Semi Sleeper) at 1.00 p.m and the driver of the said vehicle informed that the vehicle will start immediately and will reach Chennai at around 8.00 p.m. The complainant paid Rs.600/- as ticket charges for travelling from Madurai to Chennai and for the same ticket was issued by the 2^nd opposite party Travel Company.  The bus started with delay and slowly driven when the bus went near Thirumandurai toll plaza, there is move on the back side of the bus  and the bus stopped since the workers in the toll plaza  raised alarm along the passengers. All escaped from major accident, since the bus would got fire if alarm was not raised at Toll plaza. The driver and cleaner of the bus informed the passengers, it could not be repaired since engine of the bus was damaged.  The complainant with other passengers requested for alternative arrangement it was first accepted and then denied by the 1^st opposite party the ticket fare was also not refunded.  The driver of the bus asked the passengers to take some other bus to Chennai. After delay of half on hour the complainant left the place and forced take the ordinary bus and also   the complainant was travelling in a standing position for more than four hours. The vehicle was manufactured in the year of 2006 and is purchased in the name of the 1^st opposite party. The above said bus  was not maintained properly. Therefore the 1^st opposite party is liable for running the bus with defects  and opposite party’s staffs quarreled with passengers but not refunded the money therefore a lot of mental harassment happened to the complainant. Notice was issued by opposite parties on 28.08.2017 replacing the earlier notice with wrongly mentioned date. The opposite parties 1 & 2 had received notice, 1^st opposite party replied through e-mail on 01.09.2017. But complainant received information from RTO, The above said bus belongs to 1^st opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is filed for directing opposite parties to pay a sum of  Rs.3,00,000/- compensation for mental  harassment and also to pay the ticket charges of  Rs.600/- jointly  and severally to the complainant and also to the cost.    

          2. The  opposite parties  called absent and they were set ex-parte.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant booked the ticket through 2^nd opposite party for his travel from Madurai to Chennai in the 1^st opposite party’s  travel company bus bearing No.TN.02 AY 6661 (Volvo AC Semi Sleeper) at 1.00 P.M on 26.07.2017 and as per information supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant, the said bus will reach Chennai  around 8.00 p.m. The complainant paid a fare of Rs.600/- as ticket charges. And the copy of the ticket is Ex.A1. Copies of the photographs of the bus ticket Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 is the reply received from RTO Chennai. The name and the address given by the RTO in the reply reflects the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TN.02 AY 6661 and his name is added as 1^st opposite party. The registration certificate of the said vehicle in the name of the 1^st opposite party is Ex.A4. Legal notice given by the complainant to the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite party is Ex.A5 and the acknowledges are Ex.A6. Reply by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant through mail is Ex.A7.

5. The complainant contends that the vehicle was driven slowly and when it moved near Thirumandurai Toll Plaza, due to smoke seen on the backside of the bus, the workers of Toll Plaza raised alarm and bus was stopped. All the passengers were pulled out from the bus and all were luckily saved from a major fire accident. The bus could not be operated due to the damage of the engine. The passengers were asked to wait for some time for alternative arrangement to be made. Then after an hour, the complainant was informed by the driver of the bus they cannot make any alternative arrangement and also the complainant was informed as it is impossible to refund the ticket. The complainant then travelled in an ordinary bus to reach Chennai, due to which the complainant was forced to pay extra money for travelling and delay of sometime happened and also he had severe leg pain due to travelling in the ordinary bus since he stood for more than four hours for travelling.

          6. The bus is in the name of the 1^st opposite party at the time of incident as per the R.C submitted in Ex.A4, even though it is replied by the 1^st opposite party in his reply as he sold the bus later to the incident. The risk of the lives of so many passengers are involved in this matter and it is alleged that the 1^st opposite party had run the defective bus causing serious risks to the lives of the passengers. The 1^st opposite party had not refunded the ticket money paid by the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party had not replied to the notice given by the complainant and he is the person through whom the ticket was booked. Moreover 2^nd opposite party  had not appeared before the Forum even after the paper publication effected and 1^st opposite party refused to receive the notice and both of them were  set ex-parte and had not chosen to defend the complaint allegations. Therefore there is every chance for this Forum to believe the case of the complainant as it is not disproved by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is entitled for his claim and there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

07. POINT NO:2

          In view of the discussions held above the complainant is entitled to get back the refund money for the ticket and since he suffered mental agony and harassment as discussed above, we are of view that it is fit to order compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

         In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties   jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation  for mental agony and harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) towards the ticket charges besides, a sum of  Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd  day of October 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.07.2017                   Copy of Bus ticket

Ex.A2 dated 26.07.2017                   Copy of Photos

Ex.A3 dated 17.08.2017                   Copy of RTI Reply by RTO

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Copy of RC Book

Ex.A5 dated 28.08.2017                   Copy of Legal Notice

Ex.A6 dated 31.08.2017                   Copy of Acknowledgement Cards

Ex.A7 dated 01.09.2017                   E-mail sent by the 1^st opposite party                  

 

                                                                                     

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT