SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

   Complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to refund an amount of  Rs.1014/- the ticket amount  together with Rs.2,00,000/- towards  compensation for the mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards  cost of the proceedings of this case.

   Brief facts of the case is that on 16/12/2022 the complainant booked a online e-ticket through 2^nd Op  on 18/12/22 from Vyttila, Ernakulam to Thalassery for Rs.1014.60/-. The bus was scheduled to depart from Vyttila  at 10.10.P.M The complainant has to board the bus provided by 1^st OP from Vyttila Corporation Building. But the bus has not reached  at the boarding point in the scheduled time.  Even after passing 10.30 p.m there was no sign of the bus, then when the complainant contacted  in the phone number,  the person of OP  told that the bus is having some mechanical issues and it will come soon after resolving the problem.   The complainant  called them again  in every 30 minutes but they give  lame excuses till 1.00 a.m.  At last when the complainant called the OP at 1.30 A.M the person who took the call informed the complainant that the bus already reached Aluva.  From the  attitude of the  person, the complainant understood that the bus went directly without stopping  at Vyttila and they made up a story that they couldn’t  see the  complainant  at the Vyttila boarding point because the  complainant was standing exactly where the employees of 1^st OP instructed  him to wait.   At last complainant got connected bus  to reached his destination.  As a result of which the complainant suffered untold misery and hardship due to the deficiency of service of the OPs.  Hence the complaint.

 After receiving  notices, OPs filed separate versions.  1^st OP has stated that he admitted the issuance of the travelling  ticket, boarding  place and late arrival of the boarding point.  It is stated that  the bus was late due to mechanical problem.  While the bus reached at Aroor of  Alapuzha it is seen that the air conditioner  of the sleeper coach is not working.  Immediately the operating staff contacted various  workshops to get a mechanic.  Since the FIFA final is undergoing on that day no mechanics were available.  The mechanical problem solved only after 3 ½ hours and the bus started journey and reached at  Vyttila point at 1.10.A.M on 19/12/2022.  All the  available passengers were boarded in the bus and started journey.  While the bus reached at Aluva at about 20km north of Vyttila the complainant contacted the crews of the bus.  It is not possible to return the bus as other passengers will cause difficulties.  This OP is not aware that whether the complainant was at the boarding  point at 1.10 A.M-1.15 A.M at Vyttila hub which is an important  boarding point.  OP admitted that the bus went directly without stopping at Vyttila boarding point.  There is no willful latches from the part of  1^st  OP for  the delay caused  due to mechanical problem of the bus which is unpredictable and only  an act of god it is not due to the negligence of the driver of the OP. There is no deficiency of service  from the part of OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OP.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.   

   2^nd OP submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable that the 2bd OP holds no liability for any loss, direct or incidental  due to  any change in the details or cancellation of the bus service.  It is  pertinent to mention  here that  for availing the services, the complainant had entered into a contract with the  2^nd OP by consenting   to the terms and conditions of the user agreement  by which the complainant  are bound . Further submitted that the alleged no-show of the  1^st OP operated  bus cannot be attributed as a fault of the 2^nd OP and cannot be held as a deficiency  of service  by the 2^nd OP. It is submitted that the  2^nd OP is merely an online travel agent  cannot be held liable for the  individual acts of the travel service providers of 1^stOP  and they have no role to play in the present dispute and not liable  for any loss, direct or incidental that a consumer may suffer due to change in details, denied boarding or cancellation of a booked bus.  Therefore the present complaint  is to be dismissed  against  2^nd OP.

   Complainant has filed chief affidavit and document.  Examined as PW1 and the ticket is marked as Ext.A1.  PW1 was cross-examined by 1^st OP.  On the side of OPs, neither of the parties adduced any evidence  oral or documentary.  After that the learned counsel of complainant  argued the matter and the learned counsel of 1^st OP filed argument note.

   Complainant’s case  is that he booked a online e-ticket through 2^nd OP  on 18/12/22 from Vyttila, Ernakulam to Thalassery for Rs.1014.60/-. The bus was scheduled to depart from Vyttila  at 10.10.P.M The complainant has to board the bus provided by 1^st OP from Vyttila Corporation Building. But the bus has not reached  at the boarding point in the scheduled time.  Even after passing 10.30 p.m there was no sign of the bus, then when the complainant contacted  in the phone number,  the person of OP  told that the bus is having some mechanical issues and it will come soon after resolving the problem.   The complainant  called them again  in every 30 minutes but they give  lame excuses till 1.00 a.m.  At last when the complainant called the OP at 1.30 A.M the person who took the call informed the complainant that the bus already reached Aluva.  From the  attitude of the  person, the complainant understood that the bus went directly without stopping  at Vyttila and they made up a story that they couldn’t  see the  complainant  at the Vyttila boarding point because the  complainant was standing exactly where the employees of 1^st OP instructed  him to wait.   At last complainant got connected bus  to reached his destination.  As a result of which the complainant suffered untold misery and hardship due to the deficiency of service of the OPs. 

     Complainant has given evidence in tune  of his averment in the complaint.  It is an admitted fact that the bus should have reached at the  boarding point ie, at Vytilla,Ernakulam at 10.10 P.M on 18/12/2022.  OP admits that only 1.10.A.M on 19/12/2022, the bus reached Vytilla point.  Here there is no evidence that though complainant contacted many times to 1^st OP about the non-arrival of the bus at the boarding point, 1^st OP  has given satisfactory explanation to him.  According to OP, the bus became late because it had some mechanical problem and after rectifying it, the bus reached at Vytilla point at 1.10.A.M on 19/12/2022 and all the available passengers were boarded in the bus and started journey.

     Our view is  that since 1^st OP had received the ticket fare of the  complainant from Vytilla to Thalassery and the complainant contacted many times to 1^st OP about the non-arrival of it, and considering the time and situation, 1^st OP is duty bound to enquire about the complainant, when the bus reached at the boarding point ie, at Vyttila.  There is no evidence to show that OP had  tried to  contact the complainant even  in mobile phone, when the bus reached at Vytilla junction.  The said action is nothing  but dereliction of duty.  We can  imagine the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant at the situation when he knew that the bus had pass over the boarding point without  taking  and contacting him.

    Here OPs had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.   Mere  contentions in the version is  not sufficient.   None of the OPs tried to enter in to the witness box to tenter evidence.  So the OPs failed to establish their contentions.  In such situation, we are constrained to believe the averment and allegations raised by the complainant  in this complaint.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st OP.  From the evidence, about the arrival of the bus at the destination point and inconvenience caused to the passenger due to the late arrival etc , 2^nd OP is having no role.  So  2^nd  OP is exonerated from the  liability.

    In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  1^st opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1014.60 to the complainant together with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- cost of the proceedings of this case.   1^st Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Otherwise Rs.1014.60+ Rs.25,000/- will carry interest@9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per provisions in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Ext.A1- Ticket

PW1-Muhammed Sajid-complainant

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR