Orissa

Cuttak

CC/89/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

self

22 Feb 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.89/2023

 

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

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

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

 

                                                Vrs.

1. Regional Transport Officer,

Sambalpur,At/PO/Dist: Sambalpur.

 

2. Bus Owner , Ranjit Sharma,

C/o: Santosh Kumar Sharma,Gopal lane,

Budharaja Sadar,Sambalpur-768004,

Bearing Bus No.OD-15M-3155(Under R.T.O,O.P No.1)

C/o: R.T.O,Sambalpur,Dist:Sambalpur.

 

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:     22.02.2024

 

For the complainant:            Self.

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

For the O.P no.2       :             None.   

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                             

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he had travelled on 8.2.2022 from Jharsuguda to Rengali in the bus of the O.P No.2 and had paid a sum of Rs.30/-, which according to him, is in excess of the actual bus fare to be paid.  He has urged that the actual fare from Jharsuguda to Rengali as per ordinary bus is @ Rs.0.89p per km. was to be of Rs.24/- only from Jharsuguda to Rengali and thus the O.Ps in connivance with each other had collected an extra amount of Rs.6/- from him towards the bus fare.  He had demanded back the extra amount of money as collected from him but when he could not get any positive response in that respect, he had filed FIR at Sundargarh P.S on 17.1.2023 and ultimately had filed this case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to refund him the amount that which he had paid to them i.e., to the tune of Rs.30/- and has also prayed for another sum of Rs.95,500/- towards compensation from the O.Ps for his mental agony and harassment.  He has further prayed for the cost of his litigation and for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.P no.2 has been set exparte vide order dated 2.6.2023.  However, O.Ps no.1 & 3 have contested this case and have filed their joint written version. 

          According to the written version of the contesting O.Ps no.1 & 3, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.  According to them, though the complainant has alleged about the excess bus fare to have been collected by the owner of the Bus bearing Regd. No.OD-16K-6555 but he has made the owner of the Bus bearing Regd. No.OD-15M-3155 a party in this case.  Thus, according to the O.Ps no.1 & 3, the complainant has not approached before this Commission with clean hands and has only filed a false and frivolous case.  That apart, they have also harped upon the petition as filed which is barred U/S-80 of CPC since because no prior notice in writing was delivered upon them by the complainant.  Accordingly, they have urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed being 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 no.1 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper 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?

Issues no.i & ii.

Out of the three issues, issues no.i & ii being  the two pertinent issues,  are taken up together first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions as filed from either sides, evidence affidavit as filed by the complainant as well as the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that infact mandatory notice U/S-80 CPC has not been served upon the O.Ps no.1 & 3 here in this case by the complainant prior to filing of the petition before this Commission.  That apart, as per Annexure-2, which reflect to be a ticket that on 18.12.2022 an amount of Rs.30/- was taken towards bus fare for the Bus bearing Regd. No. OD-15M-3155 from Jharsuguda to Rengali but the said evidence is not sufficient in order to come to a conclusion that if the complainant or any of his beneficiaries had conducted their journey in the said bus from Jharsuguda to Rengali on 18.12.2022.     Hence, the question of charging excess fare by the O.P no.2 from the complainant is not amply proved here.  Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission notices that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that if there was any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps here in this case.  That apart, notice U/S-80 CPC admittedly is not served upon O.Ps no.1 & 3 who are Govt. officials for which the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered against the complainant.

 

 

Issue No. iii.

From the above discussions it is held that 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 no.1 & 3 and exparte against O.P no.2 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of February,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                               

                                                                                 

                                                                                      

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President

 

                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member