BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 226

Date of Institution : 21.7.2010

Date of Decision : 28.10.2010

Sukhmander Singh son of S. Pal Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Kamiana, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

General Manager, PRTC Depot, Faridkot.

...Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Vipin Kumar counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Ranjit Singh Kakkar counsel for the opposite party.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party for charging the excess fare for bus journey and to cause inconvenience to the complainant and his companions and for directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of Village Kamiana. On 20.5.2010 at about 7.00 AM he alongwith his companions Harpreet Singh, Balwant Singh, Ram Bahadur and Harbhagwan Singh started their journey from Faridkot to Amritsar in the AC bus of the opposite party bearing No. PB-11-AB/8908 which was to reach Amritsar at about 9.50 AM. The opposite party charged Rs. 80/- from each passenger including complainant as fare from Faridkot to Amritsar, but the said bus was became out of order near the bypass of canals. The complainant and his friends asked the Conductor of bus to return their amount but he said that their amount could not be returned. After long time a bus in a very bad condition was called which was not a AC bus and complainant and his companions in the compelling circumstances made their journey through that bus. The complainant and other co-passengers even requested the Conductor to return the difference of fare of AC bus and ordinary bus but he refused to pay anything to them and ask to contact the higher officers. The said bus reached at Amritsar at about 11.00 AM which was a very bad experience for the complainant and other co-passengers. Due to wastage of time and bad condition of replaced bus the complainant and his friends had suffered inconvenience and mental tension. Then, the complainant moved an application to the Managing Director of the opposite party through registered post on 1.6.2010 and after that to know the action on that application another application under Right to Information Act was also moved on 11.6.2010 but the opposite party has not given any reply of both the applications. After that the complainant got served a legal notice dated 2.7.2010 upon the opposite party through his counsel but the opposite party has not given any reply of the same but by way of making the mockery of the complainant returned the amount of Rs. 10/- through money order. So, the opposite party by charging excess fare from the complainant and not giving proper reply of the applications of the complainant made themselves deficient in providing services to the complainant and they also adopted unfair trade practice with the complainant. Therefore, complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.7.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint does not fall under the definition of deficiency of service as the bus broke down due to technical fault which was not within the powers of the opposite party. The complainant is debarred from filing this complaint as the excess amount of fare charged had been refunded on the asking of the complainant and same was sent through money order dated 5.7.2010 which was refused by the complainant. The opposite party took no time to make alternative arrangements keeping in view the comforts of the passengers. On merits, it is admitted that the opposite party charged fare @ Rs. 80/- which is only Rs. 10/- more than the ordinary bus fare i.e. 10% over the ordinary bus fare. Due to technical fault the bus broke down at bypass, Faridkot and there is no powers with the Conductor to refund the fare to the passengers and in such an eventuality only alternative arrangements are made to carry the passengers up to the destination. As, it would have take a lot of time for arrangement of another AC bus the passengers in order to save their own time agreed to board an ordinary bus as alternative arrangement. This alternative bus No. 7401 arranged by the opposite party is not an old bus but it already plys on this route with requisite route permit. The complainant had already enjoyed the facility of this AC bus for about half the total distance to have been traveled. It is admitted that the complainant and other passengers had to suffer time wise in reaching their destination. The complainant had moved an application under the RTI Act on 11.6.2010 and without waiting for the reply as per the time frame of the Act served upon the opposite party with registered notice on 2.7.2010 which shows that the complainant had no other work than to pursue the complaint. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, tickets Ex.C-2, copy of application dated 1.6.2010 Ex.C-3, postal receipt Ex.C-4, application under RTI Act Ex.C-5, postal receipt Ex.C-6, postal order Ex.C-7, legal notice dated 2.7.2010 Ex.C-8, postal receipt Ex.C-9, reply under RTI Act Ex.C-10, registered cover Ex.C-11, affidavit of Sukhmander Singh son of Balwinder Singh Ex.C-12, affidavit of Iqbal Singh Ex.C-13 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Dhoop Singh Ex.R-1 and evidence of the opposite party was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 19.10.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party is clearly proved in view of Ex.C-10 whereby excess amount of fare was returned to the complainant by way of money order dated 5.7.2010.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party however urged that no deficiency of service in this case is proved. As a matter of fact, there was break down of AC bus hired by the complainant for Amritsar. The situation which so occurred was beyond the control of the opposite party who arranged ordinary bus for the destination and thereafter on representation of the complainant the balance amount of Rs. 10/- was returned by way of money order dated 5.7.2010 and opposite party had regretted vide Ex.C-10 as to the inconvenience caused to him. However, complainant did not accept the balance amount sent to him through money order.

10. We have keenly considered the rival stands in the light of evidence on record. The opposite party has not disputed the allegations of the complainant in the complaint except disputing the fact that any harassment and mental tension was caused to the complainant for the time taken by the opposite party in arranging ordinary bus for the destination as another AC bus could not have been arranged without wasting further time. It is noticed that in Ex.C-10 competent officer of opposite party has tried to convince the cmplainant that in future the bus would be put on the relevant route after proper checking thereof to avoid inconvenience to the passengers. This observations in Ex.C-10 alludes to tacit admission of deficiency of service by the opposite parties on their part. Had the bus en-route would have been properly checked by them inconvenience to the passengers could have been avoided. Thus, deficiency of service is writ large in this case. Sending of the difference of fare of AC and ordinary bus to the complainant in such a situation would amount to adding insult to the injuries as admittedly ordinary bus reach the destination more than an hour after the AC bus was to reach there. Passengers were also unnecessarily put to trouble by compelling them to go in ordinary bus instead of AC bus in which they had opted to travel.

11. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion opposite party is liable to be burdened with compensation and the litigation expenses for which the complainant was compelled to meet to advance his case. Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, inconvenience and litigation expenses, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party shall pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 2,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 28.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)