Date of filing:      19.03.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 29.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.87/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

(CC.No.80/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

1.Mr.Mohamed Irfan, 

    No.218/64, Alwarpet Street,

    Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

 

2.Mr.Raj Mohamed,

3.Mr.Majhar @ Shahul Hameed,

    2&3 are residing at No.5, Komutty Street,

    Ayyampet Taluk, Tanjore District.                                                ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.Parveen Travels,

   Rep. by its Officer in Charge,

   No.148, Perambur Barracks Road, 

   Puasaivakkam, Chennai 600 017.

 

2.Red Bus,

    Rep. by its Officer in Charge,

    Plot No.2, First Floor, 

    Next to Kotak Mahindra Bank & Omni Bus Terminus,

    Chennai 600 107.                                                                    .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                   :   M/s.R.Elango, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party                          :   exparte.

Counsel for the 2nd opposite party                        : M/s.H.S.Herdai, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.80/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.87/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 14.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.R.Elango Advocate, counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not refunding the bus ticket fare to the complainants and also not allowing the complainant to travel on the particular day along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to return the ticket amount of Rs.917/- as the 2nd and 3rd complainant has not travelled due to the wrongful act of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants along with cost of the proceedings to the complainants. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

Complainants case was that the 1st complainant had booked two bus tickets at Chennai on 18.02.2019 around 08.15pm through 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.917/- through SBI, Ayyampet, Tanjore District.  Vehicle starting time was at 10.45 pm on 18.02.2019 for the 2nd complainant and 3rd complainant.  The 2nd complainant and 3rd complainant returned from abroad and as they were on their tedious journey they wanted to have a comfortable journey and hence the tickets were booked by the 1st complainant for the 2nd and 3rd complainants. Even though the bus journey time was fixed at 10.45pm on 18.02.2019 the bus did not reach at the specified time and place and therefore the second and third complainants were waiting for more than two hours for their bus and there was no communication from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for the non arrival of bus in the fixed time and therefore the complainants called the customer care but they could not give correct or any proper reply for the delay.  The bus arrived at 11.50pm very late and complainants were attempted to get into their seats on the bus and the 1st opposite party’s driver demanded a sum of Rs.800/- as luggage charges from the complainants.  The charges demanded by the driver of the 1st opposite party was exorbitant, arbitrary and illegal and he was refused to give proper voucher or receipt to that effect.  The complainants have tried to solve the issue amicably but the driver of the 1st opposite party was very adamant to collect the charges unreasonably.  On the other hand the 1st opposite party driver was not permitting complainants to travel in the bus even though they had valid tickets. The second and third complainants had not travelled in the booked bus for the willful and gross negligence as well as wrongful act of the opposite parties.  Thus the complainants suffered mental strain, inconvenience, harassment, untold hardship, financial loss, loss of reputation as well as the complainants were unable to perform their commitments as scheduled by them.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to return the ticket amount of Rs.917/- as the 2nd and 3rd complainant did not travel and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants along with cost of the proceedings.

Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:- 

The 2nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the main grievance of the 1st complainant is that on 18.02.2019 he had booked bus tickets for the 2nd and 3rd complainants through the online portal maintained by the 2nd opposite party from Chennai to Tanjavur. It was submitted that upon confirmation by the Bus Operator “Parveen travels” i.e. 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party sent an e-ticket to the complainant with the bus details including time of departure as 10:45 pm and the terms and conditions which the 1st complainant had agreed to at the time of booking.  Admittedly, the bus arrived at 11:50pm.  The complainants allegations that the bus driver of the 1st opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.800/- as luggage charges was denied.  Admittedly, 2nd and 3rd complainants and the driver of the opposite party did not reach the consensus which resulted in the 2nd and 3rd complainant not boarding the bus.  It was submitted that tickets were duly booked for the bus of the 1st opposite party as requested by the complainant for such date and time  and that if there was any deficiency in service the 1st opposite party was liable for the same.  It was further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant as against the 2nd opposite party does not in any manner fall within the definition of the term “deficiency” as defined under section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  It was submitted that if at all the complainants were entitled for refund of the cost of the bus tickets and other reliefs, the 1st opposite party was liable to refund the same and not the 2nd opposite party. The e-tickets sent by the 2nd opposite party upon receiving confirmation of the booking from 1st opposite party reflects the terms and conditions of the service and agreed by the complainants at the time of booking the tickets on the web portal maintained by 2nd opposite party.  The e-ticket clearly indicates the responsibilities of the opposite parties as well as the luggage policy and refund policy.  It was submitted by them that the 1st opposite party had not refunded the cost of tickets of Rs.917/- even though the 2nd and 3rd complainants have not travelled in the bus of the 1st opposite party.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7. The 2nd opposite party filed version but did not file any proof affidavit. In spite of notice served the 1st opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 18.09.2019 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:

Whether the alleged act of opposite parties in not allowing the complainant to travel on the particular day inspite of having valid ticket amounts to deficiency in service?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

E-ticket for a sum of Rs.917/- for the 2nd and 3rd complainants dated 18.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;

Legal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite parties dated 21.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;

Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery for the 1st opposite party was marked as Ex.A3;

 Returned cover from the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A4;

Photo copy of luggage was marked as Ex.A5;

Reply notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 13.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;

Rejoinder issued by the complainant dated 02.02.2020 was marked as Ex.A7;

 Point No.1:-

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the complainant booked bus tickets by paying a sum of Rs.917/- through the 2nd opposite party for the planned travel on 18.02.2019.  However, the bus did not arrive at the fixed time of 10.45pm but after several enquiries and causing severe hardship to the passengers arrived at 11.30pm.  But the complainants were not allowed to travel as the driver demanded an exorbitant amount of Rs.800/- towards luggage charges from the complainant which the complainant refused to pay.  Thus the complainant was not permitted to travel on the specified day inspite of having a valid ticket due to the deficient attitude of the opposite parties.

The 2nd opposite party filed version but did not file any proof affidavit.  The specific defence of the 2nd opposite party is that they are only intermediary between the complainant and the bus operator and hence they have nothing to do for the happenings on the fateful day.  

On apprising the entire materials and pleadings we are of the view that the defence of opposite party 2 has to be accepted.  For the allegations raised by the complainant the 1st opposite party did not appear and did not contest the allegations. The E-ticket was filed by the complainant in proof of booking the ticket.  For the legal notice sent by the complainant there was no response by the 1st opposite party.  When the complainant had raised specific allegations as to delay in arrival of bus, claiming extra charges and not permitting to travel etc, it is the bounden duty of 1st opposite party to have appeared and rebutted said allegations.  In such circumstances this commission is of the view that the complaint allegations remains unrebutted and proved. Thus we answer the point holding that the 1st opposite party had committed deficiency in service in not allowing the complainant to travel even though he possessed a valid ticket.  Thus we answer the point in favour of the complainant and as against the 1st opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the 1st opposite party directing them

a) To refund a sum of Rs.917/- (Rupees nine hundred seventeen only)to the complainant  within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b)  To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for physical hardship and monetary loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant. 

c)  To pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th day of November 2022.

 

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 18.02.2019 E-ticket for a sum of Rs.917/- for the 2nd and 3rd complainants. Xerox

Ex.A2 21.02.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A3 ............ Acknowledgement card. Xerox

Ex.A4 ............ Returned cover from the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A5 ........... Photo copy of luggage. Xerox

Ex.A6 13.05.2019 Reply notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A7 02.02.2020 Rejoinder issued by the complainant. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

 

 

Nil

 

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT