BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.

COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 16/2013.

THIS THE  16^th DAY OF AUGUST 2013.

P R E S E N T

1.    Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB.                                          PRESIDENT.

2.    Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl)                                            MEMBER.

3.    Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit)                   MEMBER.

                                                                        *****

COMPLAINANT            :-              Vijay Bhaskar, Aditi, H.No. 6-2-71/4,

                                                            Mankiprabhu Layout,Raichur.

            //VERSUS//

RESPONDENT                   :-         The Divisional Controller,

                                                            N.E.K.R.T.C., Raichur Division.

                                                            Raichur.

Date of institution  :-         13-02-2013.

Date of disposal       :-         16-08-2013.

Complainant represented In person.

Respondent represented by Sri. A.S. Mali Patil.  Advocate.

ORDER

By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-

            The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.         The complaint in brief is that, the Respondent had enhanced fare payable by commuters to different destinations while traveling from Raichur and prayed for an order to restrain the Respondent from collecting the enhanced fare and to pay the collected amount to an NGO.

3.         The Respondent filed written version stating that the complainant as false, frivolous, vexatious and baseless and liable to be dismissed in liminy. The excess fare mentioned in the complaint by the complainant is denied. It is denied that the labourers and farmers had discussions with  the conductor in the bus regarding excess fare and the conductor suggested to protest etc., These allegations have been denied as created by the complainant to suit his purpose. It is denied that, the Respondent is making “Hagalu Darode”. The Respondent Corporation is running the buses in the interest of public at large under “no profit no loss” basis and therefore getting higher fare from the passengers does not arise. The allegations made in this regard by the complainant are false and baseless. The fare fixed is based on distance of travel which is as per the statewise fare charges. The Railway Department is constructing a new bridge by demolishing the existing one at Basaveshware Circle, Raichur and the work is under progress. Therefore the Respondent is compelled to run the bus through Eklaspur  Road which is about 6 to 7 Kms. long. Number of buses are plying daily by passing through the said route towards which the Respondent is incurring lakhs of Rupees towards diesel ware & tare etc., In order to overcome  the said loss, the Respondent is forced to hike the price only to a particular area. As soon as the bridge is completed the buses will move through the said bridge and the Respondent will charge the routine fare. Looking to these facts and circumstances, there is no illegality on the part of Respondent and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. There is also no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The complaint is totally devoid of merits and not tenable in law. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice and equity.

4.         The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove his case. On the other hand, the Respondent to prove his contention filed his affidavit-evidence which is marked as RW-1 and relied on one document marked as Ex.R-1

5.         Arguments heard on Respondent side.

6.         The points that arise for our consideration are:

1.         Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on           the part of the Respondent against him.?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?

3.         What order?

7.         Our answer on the above points are as under:        

(1)     In the Negative

(2)      In the Negative.

(3)  As per final order:

REASONS

POINT NO.1 :-

8.         Though the complainant filed the complaint against the Respondent, to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant has not produced any evidence before us. For that reason the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Further regarding enhancement of fare by the Respondent is the policy matter of the government and this Forum has no jurisdiction to question the same and to grant relief to the complainant. This Forum has also no jurisdiction to recover the excess amount said to have been collected by the Respondent towards enhanced fare and to pay it to an NGO. Therefore the complaint filed has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent is alleged by the complainant. Therefore this point has to be answered in the Negative.

POINT NO.2:-

9.         For the reasons discussed under Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for reliefs prayed for. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this point is answered in the Negative.

POINT NO.3:-

10.       As per order below:

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

            There is no order as to cost.

Intimate the parties accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 16-08-2013 )

Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath,                Sri. Gururaj                     Sri. Prakash Kumar

           Member.                                            Member.                                 President,

District Consumer Forum Raichur.    District Consumer Forum Raichur.       District Consumer Forum Raichur