SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
Brief facts of complainant’s case is that on 15/08/2018, Complainant has travelled in a bus of Madhavi Motors, namely ‘Sree Mookambika’ having Registration No. KL-58-5-8778 being running from Kannur-Payyannur-Koothuparamba rout. Complainant has boarded in the bus from Thavakkara, Kannur. The destination point of complainant was at bus stop near Kalyassery Govt.High School. He wanted to attend a marriage function at Kalyassery Bank Auditorium before 10.20 AM. OP No2 is the owner of the Madhavi Motors and OP No.1 is its conductor. When the bus reached near to Puthiyatheru stop, OP No.1 conductor came near to the complainant for taking ticket. Then complainant has given Rs.20/- to OP No.1 and told to give ticket to Kalyasseri school. Then OP No.1 with an angry mood shouted to the complainant and asking to get down from the bus to Puthiyatheru. The cleaner of the bus also shouted towards complainant and asked to get down from the bus at Puthiyatheru stop. Hence the complaint has step down from the bus at Puthiyatheru stop. So he could not attended the function and he had sustained gross mental agony and injury. Hence filed this complaint.
After receiving notices, OPs1 and 2 filed written version denied all the allegations of the complainant. OPs 1 and 2 contended that no such incident as alleged by the complainant had not been taken place in the bus on the particular day as alleged by the complainant.
OPs 1 and 2 contended that on 15/08/2018, there was chief-minister’s distress relief fund programme arranged in the particular bus and it was inaugurated by Jilla Panchayath Prsident Kannur and Flag off was done by Motor Vehicle Inspector Kannur authorized by RTO. There was banner of distress relief fund also in front of the bus. The buses belonged to the 2nd OP were used for collecting the Relief fund on that date arranged by Malabar riders face book group. Due to that function, OPs had not collected either ticket fair from the passengers or given tickets. On the other hand the passengers had given relief fund and thus collected an amount. According to OPs 1 and 2, there is no reality in the incident as alleged in the complaint, and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
After filing version of OPs 1 and 2, complainant has filed a petition to implead prior RTO M Manoharan and Sub Inspector, Traffic, Kannur as additional OPs (IA110/21). The petition was allowed and they were impleaded as additional OPs 3 and 4. Additional OP 3 has not filed version despite appeared in person. Hence OP3 was declared as ex-parte. Additional OP4 filed version, stating that on 16/08/2018 one complaint was received from complainant against OP No.1 conductor and cleaner of ‘sree mookambika” bus (Reg.No. KL58 S 8778) in regarding of the indecent behavior of them towards the complainant. Conducted an enquiry in this regard and found the matter was true. Thus the conductor was find Rs.500/- U/S.178(2)(a) r/w177of Motor Vehicle Act and both the conductor and cleaner of the bus were strictly warned on 1109/2018 and the petition was disposed.
At the evidence stage, complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents. He has been examined as Pw1 and the documents marked as Ext.A1 to A8. Complainant has examined one witness also as Pw2. On the side of OPs, OPs 1 and 2 has examined one witness, alleged as co-ordinator, Malabar riders face book group and marked Ext.B1 the receipt dated 16/08/2018 stating that a sum of Rs.90,000/ received from OP No.2 as donation towards chief-minster Distress Relief fund. After that complainant has filed written argument note.
Here OPs1 and 2 totally denied the incident alleged by the complainant. They even denied the allegation of imposing fine Rs.500/- in connection with this matter. OPs 1 and 2 contended that fine was imposed in connection with violation of traffic rules in some other matters. According to OPs1 and 2, they do not know about the complaint given by complainant to traffic police in connection with this matter and not remitted fine.
Complainant has produced 8 document for substantiating his allegation against OPs 1 and 2. Ext.A1, is the acknowledgment for receipt of money Rs.500/- by sub Inspector. Traffic police, Kannur (OP No.4 here in) dated 11/09/2018 from OP No.1 U/s178(2) (a) R/w Motor Vehicle Act related to bus No.KL 585-8778. Ext. A2 Right to Information details dated 08/03/2020. Ext.A3 copy of letter given by complainant to RTO, Kannur Ext.A4 RTI petition of complainant to RTO, dated 03/08/2020. Ext.A5 copy of despatch Register RTI No/3652/2020 dated 08/09/2020. Ext.A6 Reply to RTI No.3652/2020. Dated 03/09/2020 given by RTI officer RTO office Kannur. Ext.A7 is RTI appeal petition of complainant to RIT officer dated 15/09/2020. Ext.A8, Reply of RTI officer dated 28/09/2020. Pw2 is the person deposed that he had seen the incident that, the conductor in Payyannur bus, had pushed the complainant from the bus at Puthiyatheru junction at 10 AM on 15/08/2018. On cross-examination by the learned counsel of OPs1 and 2, Pw2 has stated that he is a friend of complainant and has some courtesy to the complainant.
On analyzing the evidence of Pw2, the evidence given by the Pw2 does not bear much evidentiary value. Here it is to be noted that OPs 1 and 2 are evaded from entering into the witness box and tendered evidence to elicitate their contentions in the version. From their side one witness who has alleged to t be co-ordinator, Malabar riders, face book group, has been examined and marked the receipt Ext.B1. He has deposed that on 15/08/2018, there was collection of chief-ministers distress relief fund in the bus belonged to OP No.2 and tickets were not issued to passengers on that date. Though Dw1 has not been cross-examined by the complainant, it is seen that Dw1 has not mentioned the bus number and not even name of bus from which the amount as mentioned in Ext.B1 was collected. There is no dispute that OP No.2 has more than one bus. Hence though OP No.2 has given the Detress Relief Fund on 16/08/2018, we cannot come to a conclusion that the said amount was collected from the particular bus as alleged by the complainant.
In the instant case, it is to be noted that though OPs 1 and 2 totally denied the incident alleged by the complainant and imposing fine of Rs.5,00/- as stated in Ext.A1, the additional OP 4 filed version stating that the incident as stated by the complainant in correct and in related to that incident a fine of Rs.500/- was imposed on the conductor and cleaner of the bus as per the complaint of the complainant after conducting enquiry U/s 178(2)(a) r/w 177 of Motor Vehicle Act for indecent behavior of them towards the complainant. This is the contention given by a responsible officer of Government station House officer, Traffic Enforcement unit. Ext.A1 also shows that it was issued by the said officer after receiving the fine amount from OP No.1. Thus through ExtA1 and from the contention given by the additional OP No.4, the SHO, Traffic Enforcement unit, Kannur, complainant has proved his allegation of misbehavior of OPs 1 and 2 towards him. Moreover OPs 1 and 2 were not ready to entered into the witness box for giving evidence in support of their case. That itself is a gross fault from their part. Mere giving written version itself is not sufficient. The contentions and allegations in the version should have been proved by the party who raised it.
Through Ext.A1 to A8, complainant has proved his case. Though complainant has not produced the ticket before the commission, since OPs1 and 2 admitted that tickets were not given to the passengers on the particular date, we are of the view that non-production ticket cannot be treated as a fault from the side of complainant.
Considering the entire facts and evidences of this case, it is established that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 and 2. Here the main allegation is the misbehavior of OPs 1 and cleaner towards the complainant who was a passenger in their bus. Since the misbehavior of conductor and cleaner of the bus is proved, this type of practice towards passengers cannot be entertained. Since OP No.2 is the owner of the bus, he is also liable for the deficiency in service of his employees. Hence OPs 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the complainant a senior citizen.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant, due to the deficiency in service of on the part of Opposite party No.1. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which Rs.25,000/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts
A1- Acknowledgment for receipt of money
A2- Information details
A3- Letter given to RTO Kannur
A4- RTI petition
A5- Copy of Despatch Register marked with objection
A6- Reply
A7- Acknowledgment
A8-Reply dated 28/09/2020
B1-Receipt dated 16/08/2018
Pw1-Complainant
Pw2-Radhakrishnan-witness of complainant
Dw1-Prajil kumar T V- Witness of OP2
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
