Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 4th day of August, 2004
C.D.No.184/2003
G.V. Bhaskar Reddy,
S/o. Vasa Reddy
R/o. D.No.62-195,
Chidambara Rao Street,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
counsel Sri G.Narayana
-Vs-
- New DOT Travels,
Rep by Authorized agent A.P Tourism,
Opp: Ambhedkar Statue,
No.4&5, Hotel Vishnu Priya Complex,
Thirupathi. . . . Opposite party
2. A.P. Tourism Development
Corporation by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
C. Camp, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented By his counsel Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member
.1. This Consumer Disputes case of the complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to reimburse, the ticket amount of Rs.360/- , Rs.1,000/- towards compensation, Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case
2. The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant booked two seats to travel from Thirupathi to Kurnool, vide money receipt No. 1611622002 dt 1.6.2002 by paying Rs.360/- from opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 allotted seat No.34 &35 and the departure time stated as 8.30 P.M. The complainant and his family with an intention to board the bus approached opposite party No.1 office, but to his dismay the bus has already left at 8 P.M and opposite party No.1 refused to reimburse the said amount. The complainant has to stay for one more day at Thirupathi to make alternate arrangements which caused mental agony. Hence the conduct of opposite parties in not refunding the ticket amount and the bus departured from Thirupathi before the stated scheduled time is held deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant filed one document i.e money receipt issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant and got it marked as Ex A.1 for its appreciation in this case, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint avernments.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceedings and opposite party No.2 made its appearance through its counsel and filed its written version denying the complaint avernments as not maintainable either in law or on facts and to strictly prove the same.
5 The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the reservation made by the complainant on 1.6.2002 from opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.360/- towards fare of two tickets from Thirupathi to Kurnool vide M.R.No.161162 dt 1.6.2002. It further submits that opposite party No.1 has informed the departure time of the bus as 9.30 P.M, but the complainant did not turn up until 9.30 P.M to opposite party No.1, office, complaint so the bus departured at 9,30 PM on 1.6.2002, thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 office at 10 P.M to board the bus. Hence there remaining no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and the question of reimbursement doesn’t arise and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite party No.2 relied on the following documents Viz (1) attested Xerox copy of vehicle log sheet dt 31.3.2002 and (2) Broucher containing general rules, besides to its sworn-affidavit in reiteration of its written version as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 and B.2 for its appreciation in this case and suitably replied to the interrogatories filed by the complainant.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite parties:-
8. There is no dispute that the complainant reserved two seats by paying Rs.360/- to travel from Thirupathi to Kurnool and that too he did not travel on the said reservation.
9. The complainant alleges that the departure time scheduled for the said bus was at 8.30 PM as stated by opposite party No.1 and when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 at 8.30 PM to board the bus, opposite party No.1 stated that the bus has already left at 8.00 P.M itself. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the complainant and as in the Ex A.1 there is no mention of the departure time of the said bus and the Ex A.1 was endorsed as not traveled. But the Ex B.1 log sheet of the vehicle APQV 8760, dt 31.5.2002 goes to show that the vehicle departured from Thirupathi at 9.30 P.M on 1.6.2002 and reached Kurnool at 5.30 P.M on 2.6.2002, subsequent to that the said statement of the complainant on this aspect that the bus left Thirupathi at 8.00 P.M itself not only remaining highly inconsistence, and also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of the complainant in that regard. Therefore what follows is that the complainant did not reach the opposite party No.1, office at the scheduled time to board the bus and there appears no bonafides of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance, and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
10. The other allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not reimburse the ticket amount, the Ex B.2 Boucher of opposite party No.2, says as per General Rules, under cancellation, Rule (d) no refund will be allowed, if the tourist missed the coach or cancelled the journey after the departure of the coach, hence the reimbursement of amount doesn’t arise. Therefore there remains no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant making several allegations in the complaint but failed to substantiate the same by placing any relevant cogent material.
11. Hence in the said circumstances discussed above as there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant, the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the releifs as sought in the complaint. Therefore the complaint is worthy to be dismissed.
12. In the result the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 4th day of August, 2004
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
