Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/68/2015

Vanjivaka Srinivasulu, S/o Vangivaka Pullaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

22 Feb 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing     :04-08-2015

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:22-02-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  22^nd day of  February, 2016

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                            

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.68/2015

Vangivaka Sreenivasulu,

S/o.Vangivaka Pullaiah, Aged 63 years,

Resident of D.No.26-12-421, Raju complex,

B.V.Nagar, Nellore-524004                                                                 ..… Complainant

                                                                      Vs.

 

Regional Manger, APSRTC, Nellore.                                                                                  ..…Opposite party

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 15-02-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of                complainant in person and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay 75%  ticket amount of Rs.1,225/- with 18% p.a. interest, Rs.5,000/-  towards costs and compensation  of Rs.10,000/-.

 

            2.         The  brief averments of the complaint  are that complainant purchased reservation ticket in Nellore  at R.T.C. Bus Station on 28-05-2015 to travel from  Nellore to Kakinada for the date of  09-06-2015.  The bus pertaining to volva A.C. starts from Bangalore  and the Nellore is an intermedial point .  The complainant paid Rs.1,500/- vide ticket No.16767.  On the backside of the ticket, the reservation rules were printed wherein it was disclosed that under rule No.3, the duration of cancellation is between             24 hours and upto 2 hours before departure time of origination place.  The cancellation charges of 25% basic fare + S.R.T amount.  Due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant was not travelled on 09-06-2015 and  requested the R.T.C. authorities to refund the fare  after deducting the  cancellation charges.  When the complainant approached the counter clerk on 09-06-2015 at 6 p.m., the counter clerk informed that  cancellation rules  are not permitted  since the bus started already at Bangalore on               09-06-2015 at 2.30 p.m.   Further, there was no starting time mentioned on  the ticket at which hour the bus started.  Further the complainant stated that since he booked ticket  from NLR and the cancellation is also permissible at Nellore only and  not on the starting point in Bangalore.  Thereupon, the complainant gave requisition to the R.T.C. authorities concern on 09-06-2015 and 24-06-2015 to refund the  amount  but there was no response from them.  As there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant  claimed for Rs.1,250/- which is 75% of the ticket fare and damages of Rs.10,000/-  plus costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, the complaint.

 

            3.         On the other hand, the opposite party resisted the complaint and filed counter / written version denying all the averments made in the complaint except that of admitted certain facts.  The opposite party contended that the complainant purchased ticket  for his journey from Nellore to Kakinada in Garuda service which was arriving  at Nellore at 22.30 hours  from Bangalore by paying Rs.1,500/-  vide ticket No.16167.  It is also further contended that complainant after postponement of his journey approached the counter clerk at Nellore on 09-06-2015 at 6 p.m. and requested to cancel the ticket and refund the amount.  But the concerned counter clerk informed him that the cancellation of tickets was not possible to refund  since the bus already started at Bangalore at 2.30 p.m.   It is further contended that the cancellation rules were printed on the backside of the ticket to know the cancellation rules to the passenger and also exhibited through notice board at all reservation counters.  The said matter informed to the complainant and it is the duty of the complainant to know the exact time of departure at originating point at the time of purchasing  ticket since Nellore is an intermediate point.  Hence, the cancellation charges claim are not admissible  and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

4.         The points for determination would be:

1.  Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service? If so, whether

  the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for in the complaint?

2.  To what relief ?

 

5.         To substantiate the evidences on both sides, the complainant filed evidence on affidavit as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On the other hand, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and no exhibits marked on their side. Heard on both sides. Perused the entire material records filed on behalf of both  parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and on the side of opposite party.

6.         POINT No.1:In the present case, the factum of reservation of the ticket is very much admitted. On the reverse side of the ticket, cancellation rules are printed. Similarly, at every bus station a board is provided in which cancellation rules are provided for the notice of general public as well as commuters. The complainant is expected to ascertain the time at which the bus starts at Bangalore for a journey towards Kakinada. Nellore is an intermediate point. Therefore ,the time of arrival at Nellore and the time of departure from Nellore cannot be expected to be printed on the ticket as the said bus travels beyond Nellore and goes towards Kakinada. The time of cancellation depends upon the time at which the bus starts from Bangalore towards Kakinada and not the departure from Nellore. The opposite parties have filed the instructions regarding refund of ticket and the same is reflected on the backside of the ticket. As per the said instructions , refund of ticket fare is not permissible of the service started before claiming the ticket amount. The bus in question has started at 2:30 p.m at Bangalore. Nearly because the time of departure at Nellore is printed as 10:30 p.m would not , in any way come to the side of the complainant as the service already started at Bangalore. The complainant  having approached the concerned clerk at the counter at 6:00 pm would not in any way entitled the complainant to claim refund of the ticket amount. Except the averments in the complaint and sworn affidavit of the complainant there is no proof about the complainant approaching the reservation clerk for refund of the bus fare and the refusal of the claim to refund the amount of the bus fare. Even assuming for a moment that the complainant approached the reservation clerk at 6.00 pm on 09-06-2015 for refund of the bus fare, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled for such refund as rules do not permit the refund of bus fare if the alleged cancellation is made after the service starts at Bangalore. It may be that the complainant because of his personal inconvenience postponed the trip and kept quiet without making any attempt for refund of the bus fare. It cannot be said that the complainant is entitled for refund of bus fare since the postponement of the trip at the risk and peril of the complainant .The complainant wants to take advantage of his own fault and wants to have the luxury of claiming of refund of ticket fare besides expenses and compensation. The complainant has to blame himself for the latches and lapses and he cannot try to throw the blame on the opposite party.

7.         Under these circumstances, this forum feels that there are no bonafides in his complaint as there is no deficiency in service on part of opposite party. The point is decided accordingly.

8.         POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs as there are no merits in the complaint.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 22^nd day of  February, 2016.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

                       

 

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

19-10-2015

Sri Vangivaka Pullaiah,  S/o.Sreenivasulu,  B.V. Nagar, Nellore. (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

 

R.W.1  -

19-01-2016

Smt.G. Maheswara, S/o.Srinivasulu  Naidu,  Working as Rgional Manager in APSRTC, Nellore  (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	28-05-2015	Andhra  Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation  in Ticket No.41532638/MQ 16167.
Ex.A2  -	09-06-2015	Letter from complainant to the  opposite party.
Ex.A3  -	24-06-2015	Letter from  complainant to the  opposite party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

-Nil-

                                                                                                                                  Id/-

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT(FAC)

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Vangivaka Sreenivasulu,  S/o.Vangivaka Pullaiah, Aged 63 years, Resident of D.No.26-12-421, Raju complex, B.V.Nagar, Nellore-524004
2.	Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, 16-3-812, Ramamurthy Nagar,                   Nellore-524 003.

 

Date when free copy was issued: