Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/26/2014

vaikaraikannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Transport department. - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing : 09.01.2014

                                                                        Date of Order : 06.10.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.26/2014

              TUESDAY THIS  6^TH  DAY OF OCTOBER  2015     

 

Tr. Vaikarai Kannan,                                   

25/1, 7^th Street,

Vinoba Nagar,

Thandaiyarpettai,

Chennai 600 081.                                            .. Complainant.                      

             ..Vs..

 

The Executive Director (Directorate),

Metropolitan Transport,

(Chennai),  Corporation Ltd.,

Pallavan Illam,

Chennai 600 002.                                            ..Opposite party.

 

 

For the Complainant                 :  Party in person.  

 

For the Opposite party               :  M/s. M. Chidambaram & others

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

 

 

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant had travelled the bus on 14.2.2013 from Tondiarpet Clock Tower in Route No.32A bus from Tollgate to Manapakkam via Mint bus stand for the purpose of going to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur  where his wife was hospitalized with one day travel ticket and he was compelled to get down from the bus by the conductor of the said bus at  Pandian Theatre Bus stop in between Maharani Bus stop.

2.     According to the complainant he was boarded in the bus after verifying and ascertaining the name board of the bus that the bus will go on the way to Vallalar Nagar, the conductor of the bus was misbehaved with him and in indecent manner asked him to get down from the bus at the nonstop place stating that the bus will not go to Vallalar Nagar,  despite of the fact that the complainant was having a valid ticket to travel at the time.   Accordingly the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 25.11.2013.   A letter dated 9.12.2013 was given by  opposite party who informed of reply shortly.     As such the act of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the above complaint.    

Written version of  1^st  opposite party and adopted by the 2^nd opposite party  are  as follows:-

 

3.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  It is true and admitted that the Complainant had travelled the bus on 14.2.2013 from Tondiarpet Clock Tower in Route No.32A bus form Tollgate to Manapakkam Via Mint bus-stand.   Due to  construction work of CMRL and Fly over construction work at Mint bus stand (Vallalar Nagar) all the buses plying through Vallalar Nagar and old Jail Road were diverted via RSRM and this was carried out by traffic Police.  The said diversion was only temporarily arranged and the route boards were also not altered.  But most of the bus passengers are well aware that the bus route were changed.  Apart from that all the Diver / Conductor of the bus have also informed to the travelling public passengers.    In this case, the complainant had wrongly boarded into the bus on 14.2.2013 and never took ticket instead he had already purchased Rs.50/- token.  Without taking ticket and showing he enquired the conductor about the route to go to Mint bus stand.   Then the conductor of the bus told / informed that the bus will not go to Mint Bus stand and that as the Bride construction was going on the bus will go via RSRM.  Immediately after the information, the complainant tried to get down from the bus.   At his request the bus was stopped and complainant was asked to get down from the bus.   In this regard there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.    The concerned Conductor was retired from service.  Because of the retirement, MTC / opposite party were unable to conduct enquiry in time.     There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.    Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

 

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite party have filed his proof affidavit and no document was marked on the side of the opposite party. 

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

6.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

         Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite party,   proof  affidavit filed by complainant and opposite party  and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed on the side of the complainant and considered both side arguments.

7.     As per the both side pleadings there is no dispute that the complainant had travelled the bus on 14.2.2013 from Tondiarpet Clock Tower in Route No.32A bus from Tollgate to Manapakkam via Mint bus stand for the purpose of going to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur  where his wife was hospitalized with one day travel ticket and he was compelled to get down from the bus by the conductor of the said bus at  Pandian Theatre Bus stop in between Maharani Bus stop.

8.     According to the complainant he was boarded in the bus after verifying and ascertaining the name board of the bus that the bus will go on the way to Vallalar Nagar, the conductor of the bus was misbehaved with him and in  indecent manner asked him to get down from the bus at the nonstop place stating that the bus will not go to Vallalar Nagar,  despite of the fact that the complainant was having a valid ticket to travel at the time.  Though the opposite party in their written version have denied the said misbehaviour of the conductor towards the conductor but, admitted and stated that since there was a fly over construction work at Mint Bus stand (Vallalar Nagar) all the buses plying through Vallalar Nagar and old Jail Road which were diverted via RSRM the said diversion was only temporarily arranged and the route boards were also not altered.     When the same was told to the complainant by the conductor the complainant suddenly admit to get down from the bus while it was running so that the bus was stopped and the complainant was allowed to get down from the bus as of his own.  Contrary to this the allegation made by the complainant against the conductor about misbehaviour towards him are not true and denied.  However for this purpose that though the conductor was retired from service as mentioned in the written version by the opposite party have not filed any proof affidavit obtained from him in this regard.   Apart from this the opposite party themselves have admitted in the written version that they have taken disciplinary proceedings in this regard on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant and the said conductor was suitably advised.  This type of action said to have been taken against the said conductor by the opposite party department itself proves that the said conductor was misbehaved with the complainant on the said occasion.  Therefore mere denial by the opposite party that no such occurrence of  misbehaviour of the bus conductor towards the complainant has not taken place is not acceptable.  For the misbehaviour of the said conductor and indecent manner the complainant was treated while he was boarding the bus even the said bus route was temporarily diverted due to construction work of fly over at Vallalar Nagar the said fact would have been informed to the complainant / passenger in a proper manner by the said conductor at the earliest point of time i.e. at the time of complainant boarding the bus.  Contrary to this the unwarranted and indecent behaviour made by the conductor of the bus towards complainant / passenger amounts to mental agony and hardship to the complainant is acceptable.    For such unwarranted behaviour of the conductor who is the employee of the opposite party, the opposite party being the employer is vicariously  liable for the irresponsible and indecent of his employee i.e. the conductor.   Further, as stated by the opposite party that, though the diversion of route of the said bus was temporary, it is the duty caused upon the opposite party to put up necessary board on the said bus as information to the public / passengers.  We are of the opinion that the opposite party had committed deficiency of service in this regard by not placing board for such information in the said bus for which the opposite party is liable  to pay compensation to the complainant is acceptable.

9.     Though the complainant claim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which appears to be very exorbitant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered view that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expense to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The   opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand   only) as compensation and also to pay  a  sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount of (Rs.10,000/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order  passed till the date of realization. 

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 6^th    day of October   2015.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-       -      - Copy of One day ticket.

Ex.A2-       -      - Copy of Sri Ramchandra Hospital Pass.

Ex.A3-      -       - Copy of Discharge summary.

Ex.A4-31.10.2013- Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite

                           party with Ack. Card.

Ex.A5- 25.11.2013-Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite

                            party with Ack. Card.

Ex.A6- 9.12.2013   Copy of reply letter by the opposite party to the

                            complainant.

 

Opposite party’ side  documents:  -Nil

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.