Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/48/2016

Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, The Managing Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. Raju - Opp.Party(s)

Nataranjani

31 Jan 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 48 of 2016

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.31 of 2014 dated 04.02.2016 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Krishnagiri)

 

Monday, the 31^st day of January 2022

 

The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu State Express

      Transport Corporation

Head Office

Thiruvalluvar House

Pallavan Salai

Chennai -600 002.                                                   .. Appellant/ Opposite Party

 

 

- Vs -

P. Raju

S/o. P. Paapaiah

D.No.1/1 Vannaar Colony

Baagaloor Road

Hosur- 635 109.                                                      .. Respondent / Complainant

 

 

    Counsel for Appellant / Opposite Party              : M/s. T. Natarajan

    Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant        : M/s. M. Selvan

                                                                    

 

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 19.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Opposite Party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 04.02.2016 passed in C.C. No.31 of 2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein.

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellant is the opposite party.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3.       The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  It is the case of the respondent/ complainant that he came to Chennai on 13.04.2014 to meet his Advocate.  After meeting the Advocate, he along with one Jothi Venkatesan, General Secretary of Consumer and Environment Protection and Vigilance Association, Hosur went to Koyambedu Bus Depot around 7.00 p.m., to go to Hosur.  The bus belonging to the opposite party, bearing Registration No. TN 01 AN 0650 route No.831/UD, Bus No.C207 was ready for departure to Bangalore via Hosur.  The complainant approached the conductor and asked him as to whether 2 seats are available in the bus to go to Hosur.  The conductor replied that the seats are available for 2 passengers but the charges for travelling to Hosur is Rs.350/-.  But, actually the ticket fare from Chennai to Hosur in the State Express Transport is only Rs.230/-.  When he questioned the conductor about the ticket fare quoted by him, the conductor replied that he can pay the ticket charges of Rs.350/- and get down at any place either at Hosur or at Bangalore.  Since the complainant had some important engagement, he bought 2 tickets by paying a sum of Rs.700/- and got down at Hosur.  The contention of the complainant is that when the ticket fare from Chennai to Hosur is only Rs.230/-, a sum of Rs.350/- i.e. the price fixed for Bangalore collected by the Conductor of the opposite party bus is not proper.  Hence, after reaching Hosur, the complainant registered a complaint dated 28.04.2014 to the opposite party through the Consumer Association.  The General Manager of the opposite party sent a reply denying the allegation of the complainant stating that since the next day was Tamil New Year, there was heavy rush in the bus to go to Bangalore.  When the conductor informed the complainant that since number of passengers bound for Bangalore are more, there is no possibility for him to issue tickets to Hosur. The complainant had voluntarily stated that he would purchase two tickets at the rate of Rs.350/- to Bangalore and get down at Hosur. The said reply sent by the General Manager to the opposite party is not correct.  In fact, on the date of travelling, when the complainant enquired the conductor as to how many persons had reserved seats in the bus, it was replied by the conductor, totally 16 passengers have reserved tickets.  It means the rest of the seats are available for travel.  Further, the complainant had sought for the particulars about the number of passengers who travelled in the special bus on 13.04.2014, under Right to Information Act.  The following information was furnished:

 Reserved passengers from Chennai to Bangalore                        16

Passengers who had purchased the tickets for

  boarding the bus from Chennai to Bangalore                            21

 

Children travelled from Chennai to Bangalore                             02

                                                                                           

Total passengers who travelled in the bus                                  39

                                                                                                

Balance seats                                                            4

 

Passengers boarded at Kanchipuram to Bangalore    2

 

Passengers boarded at Vellore to Hosur                    1

 

Passengers boarded at Vellore to Bangalore -    2

 

Passengers boarded at Pallikonda to Bangalore         1

 

These particulars would clearly show that at the time of leaving Koyambedu bus stand, there were vacant seats.  But the conductor compelled the complainant to purchase the tickets to Bangalore @ Rs.350/- each, instead of issuing tickets for Rs.230/- to Hosur.  Therefore, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, he has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:

1.  To pay a sum of Rs.240/- i.e., the difference of ticket fares.
2.  To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental stress
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

4.  Opposing the complaint, the opposite party has filed a version, stating that on 13.04.2014 the bus bearing Registration No. TN 01 AN 0650 route No.831/UD, Bus No.C207 belonging to the opposite party Corporation left from Koyambedu Bus stand at 07.40 p.m., to Bangalore.  While the bus was leaving the depot, the complainant and another person got into the bus and bought two tickets for Bangalore at the rate of Rs.350/- each.  The complainant never asked for a ticket to Hosur, for which the ticket fare is Rs.230/-.  The statement of the complainant that the conductor compelled them to purchase the ticket at the rate of Rs.350/- to Bangalore stating that they can get down at any place, is absolutely false.  Since, there was a heavy rush in the bus to go to Bangalore, in order to get two seats somehow or the other, the complainant had purchased two tickets to Bangalore, though he intended to get down at Hosur.  Therefore, it is false to allege that the conductor had collected excess fare from the complainant.   Absolutely there is no negligence of service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5.   In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed the proof affidavit  and 5 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.  On the side of the opposite party proof affidavits have been filed by the General Manager and the Conductor but no documents were marked. 

 

6.  The District Consumer Rederessal Forum after analyzing the entire records have come to a conclusion that there is negligence on the side of the opposite party and directed to refund a sum of Rs.240/- being the excess fare collected by the Conductor of the bus and Rs.10,000/- towards mental stress and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.

 

7.  Heard the submission of the counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

 

8.  It is an assertive submission of the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party that the respondent/ complainant had foisted a false case against the opposite party.  On the date of travel i.e., on 13.04.2014 , there was a heavy rush in the bus to go to Bangalore, since the next day being a Holiday.  The complainant fearing that he might not get a place to sit, as he required two seats to travel to Hosur, on his own accord he purchased two tickets at the rate of Rs.350/- each, to go to Bangalore but he got down at Hosur.  Without considering these aspects, the District Forum on an erroneous reason has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  But, we find that the complainant had sought for information under the Rights to Information Act with regard to the particulars about the passengers who travelled in the special bus on 13.04.2014.  As per the particulars furnished by the opposite parties under the RTI Act, at the time of leaving Koyambedu Bus stand, 4 seats were vacant. Only to the end destination Bangalore, some of the passengers have boarded in the bus at Kanchipuram, Vellore and Pallikonda.  Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the opposite party that at the time of leaving Koyambedu Bus stand there was heavy rush in the bus to go to Bangalore.  The particulars furnished by the opposite party raises a doubt on the defence put forth by them that the complainant voluntarily purchased two tickets at the rate of Rs.350/- each to go to Bangalore, fearing that they may not get the seats.  Furthermore, it is a common knowledge, if really a person had purchased a ticket on his own accord, it is totally unnecessary for him to seek for particulars under RTI, with regard to the passengers who travelled in the special bus.  Since, the complainant had suffered mental strain he sought for particulars from the opposite party and filed a complaint.  Further we find, except the proof affidavit of the Conductor no other evidence was produced before the District Forum by the opposite party to prove their defence.  As far as the evidence of the conductor is concerned, it is a self interested one.  In the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence to support the evidence of the conductor of the bus, no significance could be attached to the statement of the conductor, especially in the circumstances when the particulars furnished by the opposite party falsify the defence of the opposite parties.  

 

9.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Rs.10,000/- awarded as compensation towards mental agony appears to be on the higher side.  Hence, the same is reduced to Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).  Except this modification, in all other aspects the order dated 04.02.2016 passed in C.C. No.31 of 2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, remains unaltered.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February /2022