Orissa

Cuttak

CC/87/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Transport Officer,Mayurbhanj - Opp.Party(s)

Ms B Kar

14 Sep 2023

ORDER

                IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C. No.87/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

S/o: Simanchal Rath,Plot No.3C/876,

Sector-10,CDA,Cuttack-753014.                                     ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.        Regional Transport Officer,                                                                                                                                                                        Mayurbhanj,At/PO: Mayurbhanj,Baripada,

Dist: Mayurbhanj.

 

2.         Parminder Singh Bagga,C/o:Surjit Singh Bagga,                                                                                                                                Owner Prince Bus bearing No.OD-11-3208,(Under RTO OP No.1)

        At:Ainthapali Chowk,Jeet Building,

        Ainthapali Sadar,Sambalpur-768004.

 

3. Secretary,Govt. of Odisha,

Commerce & Transport Department,

At:Kharavela Bhawan,Keshari Nagar,

Bhubaneswar-751001.                                                                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     21.03.2023

Date of Order:    14.09.2023

 

For the complainant:            Ms. B.Kar,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.no.1 & 3:             Mr. P.Behera,Standing Counsel(T).

For the O.P no.2       :             None.   

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                            

             Case of the complainant in short is that the O.P no.2 had taken bus fare of Rs.100/- from him which is excess than the actual fare towards his journey from Rourkela to Sundargarh on 19.12.2022.  It is stated by the complainant that he complained about the excess charging of bus fare to the Chief Secretary of Govt. of Odisha, Commerce & Transport Department, so also informed the Regional Transport Office in short RTO,Mayurbhanj.   But both of them did not take any action in the matter.  He has alleged that he sought information from the above authorities under Right to Information Act, in short RTI Act,2005 but they provided wrong information to him for which he had filed second appeal.  It is further alleged by the complainant that the bus of the O.P no.2 has been registered in the category of Express but the bus owner is not providing the said service.  It is further alleged by the complainant that being a social worker, he had protested to the collection of excess fare by the bus owners for which some of the bus owners had broken the glass of his car and for which he had given an FIR in Sundargarh P.S on 17.1.2023.  It is alleged by the complainant that O.Ps 1 & 3 are not taking any effective steps in preventing the  charging of excess fare by the bus owners as well as they are giving false information to him.  It is also stated by the complainant that he has served legal notice to O.Ps no.1 & 2.  As the O.Ps did not take any steps in redressing his grievance,  he has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to refund Rs.100/- which was realised by the O.P no.2 as excess fare and compensation of Rs.95,500/- towards  his mental agony as well as his litigation cost.

          The complainant has filed copies of some documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps, O.P no.2 although appeared but did not file any written version in this case.  Hence, he was set exparte.

          However, O.Ps no.1 & 3 have contested this case by filing their joint written version.  It is stated by them that the complainant instead of availing the statutory remedies available under the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 and rules framed thereunder, has approached this Commission.  Hence, the complaint case is not maintainable.  It is further stated by them that it reveals from the complaint petition that the complainant alleged about the excess fare collected by the owner of the Bus bearing Regd. No.OD-16K-6555 but he has made party to the owner of Bus bearing Regd. No.OD-11Q-3208.  Hence, it is alleged by them that the complainant is indulged in falsehood and approached this Commission not in clean hand.  It is stated by them that they are not the service provider.  It is also stated that the O.P may have collected excess bus fare from him but they are no way responsible in that regard.  It is stated by them that mere issuance of the alleged ticket, under Annexure-2 is not conclusive proof of charging excess fare.  The legal notice sent by the complainant is silent about the vehicle Registration number and who had received the excess bus fare.  It is further stated by the O.Ps that no notice U/S-80 of the Code of Civil Procedure served upon them before filing the complaint case and in absence of such notice, the present complaint case is not maintainable and on this ground, the present case  is liable to be dismissed,   It is also stated by them that they have not hired any service to the complainant.  Hence, the present case against them is not maintainable.  The sum and substance of the version of the O.Ps is that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant alleged that O.P no.2 had charged Rs.100/- towards the bus fare which is excess than the actual fare.  The complainant in support of his allegation has filed xerox copy of the ticket.  It is not clear from the alleged bus ticket that from which place the complainant had started his journey as well as his place of destination.  The complainant initially in the cause title of his complaint petition had mentioned that Murali Prasad Behera is the owner of the bus but subsequently he amended the name of the bus owner as Parminder Singh Bagga and accordingly, the cause title has been amended.  The complainant has filed xerox copy of his representation to the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Commerce & Transport Department, where he has stated that the registration number of the bus is OD-16K-6555 and the owner is Rizwan Raja.  He had also sent legal notice on 28.2.23 to one Murali Prasad Behera, the owner of Bus bearing No.OD-11Q-3208.  As already observed, the ticket

filed by the complainant does not clearly reveals the place from where he had started his journey as well as his place of destination.  Hence, it cannot be said that the complainant had travelled from Rourkela to Sundargarh or Sundargarh to Rourkela in the bus of O.P no.2 on the relevant date.  He had sent the legal notice to one Murali Prasad Behera, who was made party initially in the present case but subsequently he amended the cause title and stated that the owner of the bus is one Parminder Singh Bagga.  The complainant is not sure about the bus owner.  As such, the complainant is not able to prove the fact that in which bus, he was travelling from Rourkela to Sundargarh or Sundargarh to Rourkela as he had mentioned different registration number and different name of bus owner in different documents as filed by him.  Hence, it cannot be concluded that the complainant was travelling in the bus of the O.P no.2 from Rourkela to Sundargarh or Sundargarh to Rourkela on payment of Rs.100/-.  He also has not filed any other document or evidence to the effect that he was not provided services stipulated under “Category of Buses” for which he paid the fare.    The complainant could not prove is case beyond the reasonable

 doubt.  Be that as it may, the complainant has filed office order issued by the office of the Transport Commissioner-Cum-Chairman,State Transport

 Authority,Odisha,Cuttack having letter No. 7010/TC/Tech   dt.26.5.2022,

                                                                        LX-06/2017

wherein fare for different category of busses has been fixed.  It reveals from that fare fixing table that different fare has been fixed for taking into consideration the category of busses i.e. Ordinary,Express,Deluxe,A.C. Deluxe, Super-Premium.  The complainant failed to prove in which category of bus, he was travelling.  Hence, the question of charging excess fare by the O.P no.2 does not arise.   As such, the complainant miserably failed to prove his case.   As the complainant could not prove his case, the question of deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps does not arise.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

 

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 14^th day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                               

                                                                                 

                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member

 

                                                                                          Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                 President