Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/150/2016

K.Mathan Sundaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.KPN Travels India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G.Sugadev Rajaguru

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 10.05.2016

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 19.12.2019

                                                                                  

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.150/2016

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

                                 

K. Mathan Sundaram,

S/o. Mr. V. Kanagasabapathi,

Door No.17, Rajendra Garden,

Vettuvankeni,

Chennai – 600 115.                                                        .. Complainant.  

                                                                                             ..Versus..

 

M/s. KPN Travels India Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

New No.15, Old No.8, Venkatanarayana Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant      : M/s. G. Sugadev Rajaguru &    

                                                      another

Counsel for the opposite party  : Ms. R. Dhanalakshmi

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the ticket fare of Rs.1,150/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of booking of ticket and till the date of  payment to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship, extreme stress, immense loss of time and money due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party with cost to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he booked an e-ticket in the opposite party bus service to travel from Tenkasi to Chennai for the scheduled date of 09.08.2015.   The ticket was booked by online and entire bus fare also paid by the complainant.  The total fare is of Rs.1,150/-.  The complainant submits that he booked a ticket for Air Condition bus of the opposite party.   As per the schedule, the bus had to reach Chennai on Monday early morning i.e. 10.08.2015 and the complainant was also with a plan that he can come to office on Monday morning to do his urgent work.  The complainant alleged that he reached the place of departure at Tenkasi at about 07.00 P.M.  But the bus started at about 07.50 P.M. only.  The bus bearing Registration No.KA 41 A 9997 was a Multi-Axle fully Glass Covered Air Conditioned bus.   After 10 minutes of travel, the complainant and other passengers could find that there was SUFFOCATION inside the bus.  Then, they asked with Driver, he replied that the Air conditioner in the bus is not working.  Since the bus is fully glass covered, the complainant along with other passengers suffered severe suffocation and mental agony.  There is no air circulation in the bus.  

2.     The complainant submits that he requested the Driver to repair the Air Conditioner or to arrange an alternative for which, the driver replied that there is no technician available at Tenkasi and the technician will be available only at Madurai.  Thereafter, the driver contacted his office regarding this problem and the passengers also contacted the Customer Care Service of the opposite party at Salem but no response.   Then, the bus proceeded to Madurai without Air Conditioner and by opening a small window without adequate air circulation in the bus.   Then, the bus reached Madurai and there also, no technician was available.  The driver informed the complainant and other passengers that the technician will be available only at Trichy.  Immediately, the complainant asked the driver to stop the bus at Madurai, South Gate Police Station and lodged a complaint.  The complaint was registered as C.S.R. No.285/2015.  The complainant submits that the police officers advised the opposite party to replace the bus service at Madurai itself.  But the opposite party did not do upto Trichy.  The complainant submits that at last, the bus was changed at Trichy with another spare bus and proceeded to Chennai.   Because of the fault of the opposite party, the bus could reach Chennai at 01.00 P.M. on 10.08.2015.   The complainant submits that he issued legal notice to the opposite party on 20.01.2016 and reply notice dated:04.02.2016 sent by the opposite party through his Advocate admitting the facts of Air conditioner not working in the bus from Tenkasi to Trichy.   The act of delay in reaching the destination by the opposite party caused great mental agony and hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party states that admittedly, the complainant booked the bus ticket with the opposite party from Tenkasi to Chennai on 09.08.2015.  The opposite party states that while starting the bus, they used to check thoroughly and start the journey.   They used to rectify any minor problem then and there.   The opposite party bus service is a reputed one in all over Tamil Nadu.  There is no deficiency in service as narrated by the complainant.  The opposite party denies that the bus is fully glass covered and suffocation occurred etc.  The opposite party states that the complainant himself admitted that using a small window there was ventilation proves that there was ventilation in the bus and no suffocation occurred to any passenger. For the entire cause of delay in reaching Chennai, the complainant alone is responsible.   The opposite party states that only the Air conditioner was not working and other inconvenience caused to the passengers by the complainant only.   The complainant has compelled the driver to go Madurai Police Station and he himself delayed the bus reaching in time.  

4.     The opposite party states that he denies that the police authorities at Madurai advised the opposite party to replace the bus.  The Air Conditioner problem occurred due to some technical fault is admitted which was not expected by the opposite party.  The opposite party states that the Air conditioner was not worked due to some electric problem in the air compressor and it cannot be rectified by the driver of opposite party.   But the driver of the opposite party safely boarded all the passengers to an alternative bus which was proceeded to Chennai.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party states that for refund of ticket amount a sum of Rs.1,150/- with interest at the rate of 12% which is unfair, highly unethical.    The opposite party states that the complainant issued legal notice dated:20.01.2016 after the delay of 5 months of incident and in order to make quick money with malafide intention filed this case.   Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissede with exemplary cost.  

5.     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 party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of the ticket fare of Rs.1,150/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of booking of ticket and till date of payment to the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, hardship, loss and extreme stress, immense loss of time and money due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party with cost as prayed for?

7.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents of the complainant. The complainant pleaded and contended that he booked an e-ticket in the opposite party bus service to travel from Tenkasi to Chennai for the scheduled date of 09.08.2015.   The ticket was booked by online and entire bus fare also paid by the complainant.   The total fare is of Rs.1,150/- as per Ex.A1.   The complainant contended that he booked a ticket for Air Condition bus of the opposite party.   As per the schedule, the bus had to reach Chennai on Monday early morning i.e. 10.08.2015 and the complainant was also an impression that he can come to office on Monday morning to do his urgent work.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he reached the place of departure at Tenkasi at about 07.00 P.M.    But the bus started at about 07.50 P.M. only without any reason instead of 07.30 P.M.   The bus bearing Registration No.KA 41 A 9997 was a Multi-Axle fully Glass Covered Air Conditioner bus.   After 10 minutes of travel, the complainant and other passengers could find that there was SUFFOCATION inside the bus.   Then, they asked with Driver, he replied that the Air conditioner in the bus is not working since, the bus is fully glass covered the complainant along with other passengers suffered severe suffocation and mental agony.  There is no air circulation in the bus which caused great inconvenience. 

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that he and other passengers requested the Driver to repair the Air Conditioner or to arrange an alternative bus for which, the driver replied that there is no technician available at Tenkasi and the technician will be available only at Madurai.   Thereafter, the driver contacted his office regarding this problem and the passengers also contacted the Customer Care Service of the opposite party at Salem but no response.   Then, the bus proceeded to Madurai without Air Conditioner and by opening a small window without adequate air circulation in the bus, wherein also, no technician available.   The driver informed the complainant and other passengers that the technician will be available only at Trichy.  Immediately, the complainant asked the driver to stop the bus at Madurai South Gate Police Station and lodged a complaint.   The complaint was registered as C.S.R. No.285/2015 and the same is pending investigation as per Ex.A2(S).  Further the complainant contended that the police officers advised the opposite party to replace the bus service at Madurai itself.   But the opposite party did not do so upto Trichy.  The complainant further contended that at last, the bus was changed at Trichy with another spare bus and proceeded to Chennai.   Because of the fault of the opposite party, the bus could reach Chennai at 01.00 P.M. on 10.08.2015.   But no records produced to prove the complainant’s said contention.  

9.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the late arrival of bus to Chennai without Air Condition amounts to deficiency in service and the non-payment of excess amount towards Air conditioner amounts to unfair trade practice which has caused severe mental agony and sufferings and hardship to the complainant.   The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 20.01.2016 as per Ex.A3, a reply notice sent by the opposite party through his Advocate admitting the facts of failure of Air conditioner and non-circulation of air in the bus from Tenkasi to Trichy.  Further the opposite party admitted that it was due to same electric problem could not be rectified during travel and the opposite party admitted that could not run spare bus as per Ex.A4.   Therefore, it is proved that the opposite party committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

10.    The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly, the complainant booked the bus ticket with the opposite party from Tenkasi to Chennai on 09.08.2015.  Further, the opposite party contended that while starting the bus, they used to check thoroughly and start the journey.   But there is no record.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that they used to rectify the minor problem then and there.   There is no deficiency in service as narrated by the complainant. Further, the opposite party contended that the bus is fully glass covered and suffocation occurred without the circulation of air; is not acceptable because, there shall be an emergency window etc.  Further, the opposite party contended that the complainant himself admitted that using a small window there was ventilation, itself proves that there was ventilation in the bus and no suffocation occurred to any passenger; is not acceptable in the Air conditioner buses.  For the entire cause of delay in reaching Chennai, the complainant alone is responsible; is not acceptable because, admittedly, there was a failure in the Air conditioner and various arrangements made for rectification ended in vain.  

11.    Further the opposite party admitted that only the Air conditioner was not working and other inconvenience caused to the passengers by the complainant only. The complainant has compelled the driver to go to Madurai Police Station and he himself delayed the bus reaching in time; is not acceptable.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the police authorities at Madurai advised the opposite party to replace the bus but the alternative bus arranged only at Trichy.  The Air Conditioner problem occurred due to some technical fault is admitted which was not expected by the opposite party.  But there is no record to prove the sudden failure of Air conditioner.  The opposite party contended that the Air conditioner was not worked due to some electric problem in the air compressor etc and it cannot be rectified by the driver of opposite party.  But there is no record.  But the driver of the opposite party safely boarded all the passengers to an alternative bus which was proceeded to Chennai.  All the passengers were taken care and alighted at the destination very late is not denied resulting several works of the passengers were paralysed.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant.  But the opposite party has never pleaded in the written version and written argument exactly at what time the bus reached Chennai proves that as the complainant pleaded and contended that it has reached Chennai very late.  

12.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that for refund of ticket amount a sum of Rs.1,150/- with interest at the rate of 12% which is unfair, highly unethical. Because the complainant travelled from Tenkasi to Chennai for the consideration in the Air conditioned bus but Air conditioner alone failed.  The charge for the Air Conditioner was not returned to the complainant by the opposite party.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant issued legal notice dated:20.01.2016 after the delay of 5 months of incident proves that make quick money with malafide intention filed this case before this Forum.  Therefore, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint in limine with exemplary cost.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and hardship with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and hardship with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant. 

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

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 19^th day of December 2019. 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	04.09.2015	Copy of e-ticket issued by the opposite party to complainant
Ex.A2	10.08.2015	Copy of complaint to the Inspector of Police, Madurai, South Gate and receipt
Ex.A3	20.01.2016	Copy of legal notice of the complainant to opposite party
Ex.A4	04.02.2016	Copy of reply notice to the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT