Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/265/2013

M/s.S.Murali - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.K.P.N.Travels India Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Jayasankar and K.Mohan

10 Jun 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 11.09.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.06.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.265/2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

                                 

Mr. S. Murali,

S/o. Mr. Subramanian,

No.6/4, Balamuthukrishnan Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                        .. Complainant.                                               

 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

1.  The Managing Director,

M/s. K.P.N. Travels India Ltd.,

No.23-B, Rajai Road,

Swarnapuri,

Salem – 636 004.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

M/s. K.P.N. Travels India Ltd.,

Venkatanarayana Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : Mr. S. Jayasankar & another

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2  : M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- being the fare spent for his journey from Ranipet to Chennai and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, pain, suffering with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is a practising Chartered Accountant and he had been to Ooty for an audit along with his two assistants in May 2012 and for his return journey of 31.05.2012 from Ooty to Chennai, he booked a Sleeper A/c Coach in the opposite parties bus and he and his assistants were allotted L-22, L3 & L4 on payment of Rs.2,280/- being the fare from Ooty to Chennai.  On 01.06.2012 at 6 A.M., when the bus reached near Ranipet Tollgate suddenly, the bus stopped due to technical snag.  The opposite parties have not taken any steps for safe travel to Chennai by way of proper means.  Hence, the complainant and his assistants were compelled to engage a cab on payment of Rs.500/- each to reach Chennai with the account books and other connected papers related to his audit etc.  The complainant submits that the opposite parties have not taken any steps for safe travel from Ranipet to Chennai after the technical snag in the bus. Hence, the complainant and his assistants sent legal notice dated:30.07.2012 to the opposite parties for which, the opposite parties sent a reply dated:10.08.2012 along with a demand draft for a sum of Rs.900/- being the difference amount collected from the complainant and his assistants which was accepted by the complainant.  The complainant submits that it is the duty of the opposite parties to make suitable alternative arrangement.    The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties state that the complainant and his assistants booked the ticket and travelled in the bus.  While the bus is reaching near to Ranipet, the bus was break down due to technical snag. The opposite parties’ staff had arranged suitable mechanic and attended the fault.  But the defect seems to be some default in engine and was not able to repair immediately.  The brakes down of the bus itself an expected one and it was sudden. The staff of the bus made alternative arrangement for the passengers to travel Chennai in another bus.  The opposite parties state that the allegation that the complainant and his two assistants have availed cab service and reached Chennai is false.  The opposite parties state that even after availing all better services of the opposite parties, the complainant has issued legal notice dated:30.07.2012 for which, suitable reply along with difference ticket amount from Ranipet to Chennai Rs.900/- also given to the complainant by way of Demand Draft which was acknowledged by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.1,500/- being the fair spend for the journey from Ranipet to Chennai as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony etc with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments and has not turned up to advance any oral argument.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant and his two assistants booked ticket from Ooty to Chennai in the opposite parties bus and boarded the bus on 31.5.2012 at 6 P.M.  On 01.06.2012 at 6 A.M., when the bus reached near Ranipet Tollgate suddenly, the bus stopped due to technical snag.  The opposite parties has not taken any steps for safe travel of the passengers to Chennai by way of proper means.  Hence, the complainant and his assistants were compelled to engage a cab on payment of Rs.500/- each to reach Chennai with the account books and other connected papers related to his audit etc.  But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove such payment to the cab.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not taken any steps for safe travel from Ranipet to Chennai after the technical snag in the bus which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant and his assistants sent legal notice dated:30.07.2012 as per Ex.A2 to the opposite parties for which, the opposite parties sent a reply dated:10.08.2012 as per Ex.A4 along with a demand draft for a sum of Rs.900/- being the difference amount collected from the complainant and his assistants which was duly accepted by the complainant.  Further the contention of the complainant is that it is the duty of the opposite parties to make suitable alternative arrangement.  The opposite parties have not taken any steps for such suitable arrangement which caused great hardship.  But the difference amount of Rs.900/- has been received by the complainant without any protest.  The complainant also has not stated anything about the correct fair and the difference amount of Rs.900/-; whether it is very low or reasonable.  After receiving the difference amount of Rs.900/- without protest the complainant has filed this case establishes that there is no deficiency in service.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the complainant and his assistants booked the ticket and travelled in the bus. While the bus is reaching near the Tolgate, Ranipet, the bus was break down due to technical snag. The opposite parties’ staff had arranged suitable mechanic and attended the fault.  But the defect seems to be some default in engine and was not able to repair immediately.  The brakes down of the bus itself is an unexpected one and it was sudden. The staff of the bus made alterative arrangement for the passengers to travel to Chennai in another bus.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation that the complainant and his two assistants have availed cab service and reached Chennai is false.   But there is no iota of evidence produced before this Forum.  The allegation of the complainant is that they had huge luggage also; is not acceptable because, the complainant has not paid any amount towards luggage.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that even after availing all better services of the opposite parties, the complainant has issued legal notice dated:30.07.2012 for which, suitable reply along with difference ticket amount from Ranipet to Chennai Rs.900/- also given to the complainant by way of Demand Draft which was duly acknowledged.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has not proved the allegation of deficiency against the opposite parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of June 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	24.05.2012	Copy of ticket issued by the opposite parties
Ex.A2	30.07.2012	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties
Ex.A3	02.08.2012	Copy of acknowledgement card
Ex.A4	10.08.2012	Copy of reply legal notice issued by the 1st opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2  SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT