Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/153

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kartar Bus Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sethi ADv.

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 153 of 12.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   21.03.2016

                              

Mandeep Singh son of Sh.Kashmira Singh c/o Vikram Monga, Advocate, Chamber No.6023, 6^th Floor, New District Courts, Part-II, Complex, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Kartar Bus Service, Near Old Bus Stand, Raikot District Ludhiana through its authorized signatory/partner/Prop./Manager.

2.M/s Kartar Bus Service, New Bus Stand, Raikot District Ludhiana through its authorized signatory/partner/Prop./Manager.

3.Pala son of Bahadur Singh r/o VPO Mohali Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

4.Chamkaur Singh son of Nachattar Singh r/o VPO Panj Garaiya, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :       In person

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant, a commuter, travelled on bus of OP1 and OP2 on 5.12015 at about 7:55 AM with his friend Aman. That bus bearing registration No.PB-12-     F-8009 used for travelling from Raikot to village Sandaur and OP3 charged Rs.20/- as fare, albeit for the same route, Rs.15/- charged as fare by the Punjab Roadways as per notification of Punjab Government. When the factum of charging of Rs.15/- as fare was brought to the notice of OP3 and OP4 by pointing out that Rs.5/- in excess has been charged, then both OP3 and OP4 started mis-behaving with the complainant by using abusive language in the presence of other passengers. Both OP3 and OP4 tried to pull out the complainant in between the area from Lohatbadi to Raikot. Op4 openly threatened the complainant by claiming that he is Adda Incharge and can do anything because the company, in which, he is employed has high links with the officials of DTO, Ludhiana and other police officials. Complainant approached OP1 having registered office at Raikot, who claimed that such things will not be repeated in future because action will be taken against OP3 and OP4, but to no effect. Legal notice dated 15.1.2015 was got served by the complainant through counsel Sh.Vikram Monga, Advocate for calling upon the OPs to apologize, but that notice not replied. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony, but Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses sought.

2.                Ops did not appear despite service and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                Oral arguments heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                Complainant through complaint as well as submitted affidavit Ex.CA claimed that Rs.20/- was charged as fare from him on 5.1.2015 during travelling from Raikot to Sandaur by OP3, despite the fact that such fare for the same route is Rs.15/-. In support of these assertions of the complaint and affidavit, complainant has produced the passenger ticket issued by Punbus/Punjab Roadways Ex.C7 for showing that Rs.15/- is charged by the said Roadways for journey from Raikot to Sandaur. Ex.C6 is the copy of ticket produced by the complainant to show that Rs.20/- was charged by OP1 and OP2 company for such travelling by the complainant and his friend. This documentary evidence produced on record by the complainant fully establishes that Rs.5/- was charged in excess from the complainant, than the fare chargeable for the same route by buses of Punbus/Punjab Roadways. As in view of the notification issued by Punjab Government, private operators as well as the bus operators of government owned buses entitled to charge the same amount of fare for the same route, but in this case, Rs.5/- charged in excess from the complainant by Op3 as agent of OP1 and OP2 and as such, liability of OP1 and OP2 as principal to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.5/- is there.

6.                In case, OP3 and OP4 misbehaved with the complainant by abusing him, then criminal complaint for offence of criminal intimidation or like that is maintainable. Consumer Forum is to assume jurisdiction on proof of deficiency    in service or on proof of adoption of unfair trade practice. Charging of excess    fare by the employees of OP1 and OP2 from the passenger is an act of an unfair trade practice and as such, in view of this deficiency in service on the part of OP1 and OP2, they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.1500/- for mental harassment and sufferance of the complainant. Even Op1 and OP2 are liable to pay Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation. Relief against OP3 and OP4 cannot be granted because they just acted as agents of OP1 and OP2, while charging Rs.5/- in excess as fare to the notified by the Punjab Government.

7.                As per Section 211 of Indian Contract Act, an agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, but in the absence of any such directions according to the custom, which prevails in doing business of the same kind, at the place, where the agent conducts such business. As per Section 222 of Indian Contract Act, the employer of an agent is bound to indemnify him against the consequences of all lawful acts done by such agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him. In view these legal provisions also, if OP3, being a Conductor of bus of OP1, charged excess rent, then OP1 and OP2, being the principal, liable for the overact of extra charging of fare by the agent from the complainant. So, beneficial remains OP1 and OP2 and as such, there liability as principal adjudged as joint and several.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that OP1 and OP2 will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.5/- and even pay compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1500/- to the complainant within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, no relief against OP3 and OP4 granted because they charged excess fare as agents of OP1 and OP2 only. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:21.03.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.