But most astonishing factor is that counter of the ops were found closed.But there was no information about the cancellation of the said Bus, either by the op no.1 or by Op no.2.But complainant learnt from the local or other bus operators that Purnima Paribahan had not been carrying any service for the last three weeks prior to 02.10.2014, that means ops were aware of the fact well in advance about three weeks back that on 02.10.2014, the said Purnima Paribahan shall not carry any passenger because they have closed their service.Then how op nos. 1 reported by SMS to the Mobile of the complainant that their schedule programme for journey is confirmed at about 10:25 AM on 02.10.2014 that means hoax was given by the ops through their persons and in fact complainant appeared at the departure spot without any anxeity along with luggage etc.But after appearance she found that she is in turmoil because there was no such bus of ops for her to go to Asansol.Though she had her ticket in her hand and it was confirmed ticket for journey but service provider were found absent from the scene, not even there was any person to report the customers of that bus whether any alternative service was provided or not and in such a situation any house wife being a judicial officer must be perplexed and in fact in such a situation any seat in any other transport was not available in view of the fact at the relevant time, Durga Puja days were continuing.
So, vacant seat is quite impossible to get from any other bus.In such a situation, must be annoyed because she was thinking that if it would not be possible for her to get any seat of any bus, in that case her prestige shall be lowered down to her father-in-laws family members and such a pain and sufferings of a lady officer cannot be any way assessed by any sort of money.
However due to God Grace somehow or otherwise she got a ticket of other bus but Hoax was given by the ops by SMS on that date that is on 02.10.2014 at 10:09 AM and when on arrival she found that the entire service as would be rendered by the ops were completely hoax, no doubt complainant suffered mental pain and practically she has been harassed but anyhow she was saved for her journey by getting a ticket in another bus operator by paying Rs. 420/-.
Now the question is whether only by paying that amount of Rs. 370/- can op claim that they have discharged their liabilities.In this context it is to be mentioned that if service providers at the last moment of journey fails to give proper service and cannot give any alternative accommodation or seat in any other bus by the service provider and forthwith cannot pay the amount from any counter from the place of departure, the entire conduct of the service provider (Op Nos. 1 & 2) shall be treated as negligent and deficient manner of service in all respect.Mere refund after submission of the claim/grievance made by the complainant cannot anyway give any relief to the ops because op’s entire act is nothing but a hoax and in view of the fact even after reaching at the departure place, consumer found that their bus was not running for long period.
Fact remains that there is E-ticket which was issued by the Redbus.Then invariably Redbus Authority ought to have informed the complainant well in advance that their bus of Purnima Paribahan was not plying and truth is that the said Purnima Paribahan closed their service long prior to the date of journey on 02.10.2014 i.e. about three weeks back prior to that date of journey.That means there was some dispute in between Redbus Authority and Purnima Paribahan but that is not a subject concern of the customer.When the ticket has been sold by the Redbus Authority, it is the bounded duty on the part of the op no.1 to give proper service till departure of the said bus.But in this case it is proved that nothing has been done by the ops but ops fled from departure place by closing the counter.
But op no.1 has tried to convince that as because they have already paid the amount complainant is not entitled to get any relief, is not all a good defence in view of the fact that full service and good service has not at all been rendered by the op no.1.For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that op nos. 1 & 2 are two different organisations, even then they are equally liable for not giving proper service to the complainant and for which in the eye of law, both are equally responsible for that and in fact op no.1 was well aware of the fact that they would not be able to provide said bus even then they did not report or inform to the complainant by SMS that same is already cancelled for want of bus.But that had not been done.So it is no doubt a negligent and deficient manner of service in all respect on behalf of the ops.
Another factor is that the said period Durga Puja was in progress and considering the complainant’s status and her social obligation to attend the same, we find that no doubt after arrival when she found that no announcement was there or no availability of the bus or note etc. was there, we are convinced that this lady officer was mentally shocked but was perturbed and no doubt it was a mental pressure at that time and in such a situation invariably any such lady officer must have to suffer from mental depression.But as because she had her social status and dignity in the society, she somehow managed to get a ticket in another bus and faced the situation and such a situation was no doubt an alarming condition to the complainant and that situation was caused only for the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 jointly.
Another factor is that no doubt in the E-ticket, there is no such clause about the responsibility of the Purnima Paribahan.Though in the said E-ticket, it is mentioned that bus operators may cancel the service due to unavoidable reasons.The Redbus shall not be responsible.But in the present case op no.1 has failed to prove for what unavoidable circumstances that bus was not placed.Then op is responsible for not providing a bus of Purnima Paribahan or of other at the relevant time for journey.
At the same time in the said E-ticket, there is no such announcement for Purnima Paribahan and does not place any bus and withdraw any bus in that case Purnima Paribahan is responsible for that.But after considering the entire terms and conditions, we are convinced to hold that Redbus Authority is running the business but they have failed to give service for which they are responsible for any sort of deficiency in service and in the present case deficiency in service on the part of the op is well proved and for which complainant suffered mental pain and agony and also she was harassed on the said date and practically it was not possible for her if she would not be a judicial officer to get any seat at such high time.
Further after proper assessment of the materials on record, it is found that op nos.1 & 2 jointly did not inform the complainant about the withdrawal of bus of Purnima Paribahan which was known to op no.1 but even then gave a hoax by sending a confirmation SMS of the journey on that date of journey and about that there is no denial on the part of the op.
Most interesting factor is that op no.2 received the summon, but op no.2 did not contest this case and in this regard after handling of similar type of many cases, we have gathered that the authority who are selling the tickets for any journey by bus always asked the Purnima Paribahan concerned not to contest because Purnima Paribahan concerned are not selling the ticket.Business is run by the establishment who is selling the ticket to the customer with such condition that they shall have to place the bus.If on the way bus does not run, in that case, it is the duty on the part of the ticket seller company to see the entire matter and to arrange for maintenance of bus for smooth running and said journey for the confirmed ticket holders but it is not the liability of the Purnima Paribahan.As because buses are hired by the service provider that is business tactics of the present op and every Transport Company all over India and such sort of bus is run by Transport Company who are liable to provide the vehicle.
But it is not the liability of the owners of the bus to provide service to the customers because owner of the bus or driver does not sell the ticket.But their bus with driver and conductor are hired by the Transport Company who are dealing the business.Anyhow in the present case it is found that there is no agreement in between the ops on the basis of which the whole business is run by op no.1 but op no.1 is Transport Company.
But anyhow Purnima Paribahan did not sell the ticket to the complainant for which responsibility firstly lies upon op no.1 and if there is any agreement in between the ops, both the ops are responsible for that but no doubt op no.1 harassed the complainant in all respect when there was a scope on the part of the op to report well in advance, they are unable to provide any bus on 02.10.2014 as because Purnima Paribahan already closed their bus and for that reasons we are convinced to hold that the whole responsibility firstly lies on op no.1 and secondly lies upon the op no.2.
Anyhow the Ld. Lawyer of ops submitted that when the entire bus fare has already been refunded to the complainant, then complainant has no right to file this complaint to this Forum.
But in this regard after proper consideration of the entire affairs we find that mere refund of money is not sufficient to hold that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the op.On the contrary the entire materials on record support that the op no.1 as a Transport Company sold the ticket confirming the date of journey also but on the date of journey did not provide bus and most interesting factor is that the op no.1 has claimed that they are agent of the Purnima Paribahan but no such document is produced and another factor is that in the receipt there is no such indication that as an agent of Purnima Paribahan, they are selling ticket. If anyone sells any ticket on behalf of Purnima Paribahan, in that case physical appearances of the ticket would be otherwise.
So, considering all the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that invariably there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.1 and practically not to give any chance to the customer to realize that the bus on that date shall not ply, they sent such a hoax SMS on the particular date though journey was confirmed.But on appearances of the complainant at spot she found that even the counter of Redbus-cum-Purnima Paribahan is closed and that situation is sufficient to hold that complainant was completely harassed.
In this context we have further considered the ticket wherefrom we find that op no.1 has tried to convince that they are agent of Purnima Paribahan.If that is the fact, in that case, nature of the ticket would be otherwise.The entire ticket shall be of such a nature that Purnima Paribahan is the Transport Company op no.1 is the agent.But the ticket itself unilaterally informs that there is no such note that Purnima Paribahan is the travelling agency and on the other hand there is no note that they are selling the tickets of Purnima Paribahan as agent.The entire ticket bears unilateral condition of the Redbus.
So, no doubt for the deceitful manner of business and trade as run by op no.1 has caused mental pain, sufferings to the complainant and in fact complainant was compelled to purchase a ticket to meet to solve her responsibility as house wife and was compelled to purchase a separate ticket of Rs. 420/- of Green Line Company and went to Asansol.
Lastly after over all evaluation of the materials, we are confirmed that Redbus Authority ought to have arranged for alternative accommodation in any other bus but that too had also not been done and reason for cancellation is not any unavoidable circumstances and op no.1 has not mentioned any unavoidable circumstances for which the said bus was cancelled.So, in all respect the negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.1 is well proved and at the same time op no.2 is also responsible when there is a so called tie in between the ops.
In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that the allegation as made by the complainant is proved beyond any manner of doubt and there is sufficient ground to file this complaint, even after refund of the fare by the op no.1on the ground deficiency and negligence and deceitful manner of business run by the ops are well proved and for their negative attitude and also for callousness, practically complainant was harassed much and if she would not get any bus on that date, in that case she shall have to bear social stigma in her life from her father-in-law’s house.
Thus the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and further for causing mental pain and for harassing the complainant in such a manner and also for adopting deceitful manner of trade and for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the ops, ops, jointly and severally shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within one month along with litigation cost and if ops fail to comply the order, in that case, ops shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
In any case if it is found that ops have disobeyed the Forum’s order, in that case penal proceeding u/s 25/27 of C.P. act 1986 shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
