| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/117 of 5.6.2015 Decided on: 29.9.2015 Amit Kumar Bedi S/o Sh.Rajinder Kumar Bedi, r/o H.No.2,Mohindra Complex, Kheri Gujraan Road, Patiala.(9417011969) …………...Complainant Versus Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation(PRTC),Patiala through its’ MD available at Head Office, Nabha Road, Patiala. [Email:mdprtc@gmail.com] …………….Op Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: In person. For Op : Sh.Pankaj Sharma, Advocate ORDER D. R. ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is the case of the complainant that he had got two tickets booked online through the portal of the Op i.e. www.busindia.com with the Op for undertaking the journey from New Delhi to Patiala through Volvo (Gold line) bus having paid Rs.990/-, the copy of the e-ticket / reservation voucher being Annexure-A. After the booking of the ticket, online, the Op confirmed the tickets through SMS on his mobile phone No.94170 11969.
- On 4.4.2015, when the complainant reached ISBT New Delhi, he came to know from the counter of the Op that the bus scheduled to arrive at 5.30PM will not reach at the stands. The Adda incharge Gurvinder Singh SI, who was present at the counter disclosed the said fact and gave in writing on the print out of the ticket, in his hand and under his signature bearing the stamp so that the complainant could claim his refund after reaching at Patiala as the refund had to be made at the P.R.T.C. office at Patiala.
- On account of the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant had to buy two fresh tickets for the ordinary bus from New Delhi to Patiala on 4.4.2015 itself. When the complainant reached back Patiala, he met the concerned authorities in the bus stand of the PRTC on 10.4.2015 in connection with the refund of the amount of the fare of the tickets. The officials informed the complainant that he will have to raise a request for the refund online and by sending the e-mail to MD, PRTC with a copy to PEPSU online and the complainant did accordingly on 16.4.2015.The complainant awaited for a number of days and sent the reminder through e-mail to MD PRTC on 23.4.2015 but to no effect.
- The act of the Op in not having refunded the fare of the tickets is said to be a deficiency in service as also an unfair trade practice in as much as the Op had booked the tickets knowingfully well that bus had not to depart on 4.4.2015 and therefore, the complainant had to incur additional expenses for booking the tickets with the Op online. The Op also failed to intimate the complainant with regard to the fact that the bus will not be coming to the stands at ISBT, which resulted into the harassment and the inconvenience suffered by the complainant. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to refund the fare of the tickets i.e. Rs.990/-, the compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/-; to pay him Rs.5500/- towards litigation charges and further to award a sum of Rs.25000/- on account of the deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice.
- On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant had booked two tickets online with the Op for travelling in Volvo (Gold line) bus on 4.4.2015 from New Delhi to Patiala and that he paid Rs.990/-. It is further the plea taken up by the Op that the bus in question had gone out of order suddenly before the departure time from Delhi and therefore due to the unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, the bus could not ply. It is also admitted by the Op that the Adda incharge Gurwinder Singh SI had mentioned the said fact on the print out of the internet ticket in his hand/signatures and the writing bore his stamp. It is also admitted by the Op that the complainant on coming back to Patiala had approached the competent authority at the bus stand for the refund of the amount of Rs.990/- on 10.4.2015 and that he was informed that he will have to raise a request for the refund online and sent the e-mail in this regard to MD PRTC with a copy to PEPSU online, which the complainant did on 16.4.2015. It is however, denied that after awaiting for a number of days, the complainant had again sent reminder through e-mail to MD, PRTC on 23.4.2015 but to no effect.The Op refunded the amount of Rs.990/- to the complainant on 6.7.2015, the op having attached the copy of the refund print out with the written version.
- It is denied that the Op booked the tickets despite knowing the fact that the bus had not to run on 4.4.2015 and that the complainant had to incur additional expenses for booking the tickets with the Op online .Had he known that the bus service would not be run on 4.4.2015 he would have certainly avoided online booking and save the additional expenses.Again it is averred by the Op that the bus had suddenly gone out of order about half an hour before the departure time. It is denied that the Op failed to intimate the complainant with regard to the fact that the bus will not be arriving at the stands on 4.4.2015 at ISBT and the same resulted into the harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. It is denied that the Op had the mobile number or the e-mail address of the complainant, which the Op got compulsory filled online at the time of the booking of the tickets. It was beyond the scope of the Op to inform the complainant about the bus having gone out of order about half an hour before the departure. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed his evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.OP Khichi GM of the Op alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
- It is a fact admitted by the Op that the Volvo Gold Line bus scheduled to depart from Delhi to Patiala on 4.4.2015 could not ply because of some defect having occurred in the bus, as per the plea taken up by the Op. The Op had booked the two tickets of the complainant as would appear from the booking slip,Ex.C1 online. The ticket does not contain any terms and conditions with regard to the refund of the booking amount in case for one or the other reason the scheduled bus does not depart. The Op should have made an arrangement for the refund of the booking amount may be at the counter at ISBT New Delhi or online by crediting the amount into the account of the purchaser of the ticket so as to avoid the uncalled for harassment.
- In our case, the Adda incharge ,PRTC, Delhi simply gave in writing on Ex.C1 that the scheduled trip of AC bus from Delhi to Patiala at 17.30 hours had missed. It was submitted by the complainant Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi, that he would not have approached the Forum through the present complaint but despite the complainant having done his best efforts as advised by the officials of the Ops by way of making a request for the refund online and having sent the reminders, he could not get the refund. In this regard, he made a reference to the e-mails Exs.C4 dated 16.4.2015 and C3 dated 23.4.2015.He got the refund only on 6.7.2015 as would appear from his affidavit Ex.CA regarding which he got the intimation through e-mail Ex.C6 dated July 7th ,2015.
- It was submitted by the complainant that he had to bear the uncalled for harassment and the mental agony because of the lack of system made on the part of the Op in the matter of refunding the amount spent by him in purchasing the tickets online and therefore, he pressed for the reasonable compensation.
- On the other hand, nothing could be argued on behalf of the Op by it’s counsel.
- We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the Op should have devised a way in the matter of refunding the amount of the fare of the tickets of the bus having missed the trip in respect of the passengers having got the tickets booked online within the reasonable time of 5-7 days and the passengers in this regard should have been given the information on the online ticket itself so as to avoid the uncalled for harassment and the mental agony. Nothing of the sort is to be found in the e-ticket/reservation voucher Ex.C1.We can very well understand and assess the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant because of the lack of the provisions made by the Op in the matter of refunding the amount as also the discomfort experienced in having travelled in the ordinary bus as compared to the AC bus. Therefore, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances, the complaint is accepted. The Op is directed to make the payment of Rs.20,000/-by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Op and the same is inclusive of the costs of the complaint. The order be complied by the Op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated:29.09.2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
