<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.254/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Ashok Kumar VS/o G.Ganapaiah,Major,No.3, I Floor, V Main,BEML Layout, Manivilas Garden,Basaveshvara Nagar,Bangalore – 560 079.Advocate – Sri.Aravind M.NeglurV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) M/s.Durgamba Motors,Hotel Swathi, No.1,Railway Platform Road,Sheshadripuram,Bangalore.Rep. by its Proprietor/Partner2) M/s. Durgamba Motors,NH 17, Hanglur,Kundapura,Udupi Dist.Rep. by its Proprietor/PartnersAdvocate – Sri.N.Rajshekar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.14,100/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant booked two tickets with the OP to travel from Bangalore to Kundapura on 23.10.2008. The said booking is made on 16.10.2008 in a sleeper class Bus of the OP. OP collected the necessary fare charges of Rs.740/-. On 23.10.2008 complainant along with his wife and 15 months old child came to Swathi Complex to board the said Bus at 9.30 PM. Right up to 12.00 PM the Bus did not come to the spot. On insistence at 12.05 A.M an ordinary Bus was brought to the spot belonging to the Greenline Company. Complainant and other passengers were forced to board the said Bus. The condition of the said Bus was miserable. Windows were not closing properly. Due to chilly weather complainant’s child health was affected. The said Bus took them only up to Shimoga and at 7.00 A.M they were dropped further arrangement up to Kundapur is not made. With a great difficulty complainant and his wife and the child reached Kundapur in a Car No.KA-04/N-4897 belonging to the friend of the complainant on sharing the petrol cost. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP complainant was put to greater hardship and prejudice. Then he caused the legal notice to compensate him on 06.11.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP due to unexpected heavy rain fall on 23.10.2008 their regular routine Bus was held up and there was a brake down. That is why OP immediately made alternative arrangement and engaged Greenline travel bus. Complainant and other passengers traveled in the said Luxury Bus without any objections. From Shimoga OP made other arrangement. Complainant was expected to travel in Bus KA-20/B-1220 to go to Kundapur but some how he didn’t join the other passengers. The other allegations of the complainant that the condition of the Bus was horrible, no proper care was taken is baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. The claim of the complainant with regard to the loss, damages and compensation is highly imaginary. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced documents along with affidavit of a witness. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents along with evidence of one witness. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant booked two tickets to travel from Bangalore to Kundapura in a sleeper coach belonging to OP on 16.10.2008. The date of journey being 23.10.2008. The departure time is 9.30 P.M from Swathi Complex, Platform Road, Bangalore. It is further contended by the complainant that he along with his wife and child of 15 months came to Swathi Hotel Complex well in time they were made to stand on the road. There were no proper arrangements made for the convenience of the passengers. Right up to 12.00 midnight the said Bus didn’t come. Then on insistence OP made alternative arrangement at 12.05 A.M and brought one ordinary Bus belonging to Greenline Company. Condition of the said Bus was miserable. Some how complainant and other passengers traveled in the said Bus up to Shimoga. From Shimoga no arrangement was made by the OP so as to take them to Kundapur. Hence complainant was forced to take assistance of his friend and traveled in his Car KA-04/N-4897 on sharing basis. Affidavit of the friend of the complainant is filed to corroborate his say.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As it is there is no personal ill will or grudge between the complainant and the OP. The evidence of the complainant appears to be trustworthy. As against this OP flatly admits that due to heavy rain on that day the Bus expected to carry complainant and other passengers from Bangalore to Kundapura broke down. So this one admission itself is sufficient to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. If the contention of the OP is believed that there was a heavy rain fall on that day then we can imagine what will be the fate waiting of waiting passengers from 9.00 P.M to 12.00 PM in front of hotel. These are all the instances of the inconveniences faced by the passengers. Though OP collected the necessary fare charges failed to extend the expected service.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course OP says that it made alternative arrangements by hiring a Greenline motors bearing No.KA-03/C-234. It is also otherwise admitted by the OP that the said Bus carried passengers only up to Shimoga and from Shimoga OP again arranged another Bus No.KA-20/B-1220. What was the condition of the said two Buses is not known. Neither the photographs or the details of the said Buses are produced so as to show that they are the Luxury Buses because complainant has specifically contended that an ordinary Bus was provided to them as against the sleeper class bus.<br /> <br /> 9. OP collected the higher price for the sleeper class Bus but made complainant and other passengers to travel in an ordinary Bus. If the said Buses are the Luxury Buses the other passengers would have filed an affidavit to that effect, but it is not so. Either the conductor or the driver of the said two Buses have filed their affidavit to substantiate the contention that their Buses were the sleeper luxury Buses. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant that OP failed in providing the expected service.<br /> <br /> 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we find there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of the complainant he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Admittedly complainant traveled from Bangalore to Shimoga. The claim of the complainant in seeking the compensation of Rs.14,100/- appears to be on higher side. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />