For the Complainant                       -  Mr. Sanat Sil, Advocate

For the OPs                                       -Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate      

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

            In a capsulated form, complainants case is that he had booked  05 AC Volvo Bus tickets vide PNR No.77228631 against payment of Rs. 4,650/- to travel from Puri to Kolkata on 11.05.2017 operated by OPs, departing at 7.00 PM. According to  the complainant, at about 05.54 PM he had received a telephone call from a person claiming himself as staff of OPs directing him to reach the boarding point as soon as possible. Complainant and his family members immediately reached at the boarding point but the AC Volvo Bus had already departed before its schedule time. Resultantly, the complainant had again to incur Rs. 2,504/- for purchasing tickets from OSRTC and reached Kolkata on the following morning. Complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and frustration on account of negligence on the part of the OPs. In this regard, all the requests and persuasions including the demand notice dated 13.06.2018 went in vain. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum with the instant complaint with a prayer directing the OPs to refund the booking amount of Rs.4,650 including interest  at the rate of 10 percent, Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.2,00,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice.

            The OPs have contested the case by filing Written Version raising preliminary objection and also admitted regarding booking of 05 seats to travel from Puri to Kolkata at a consideration of Rs.4,650/-. Tickets were booked on 11.05.2018 wherein reporting time and departure time have been mentioned at 6.30 PM and 7.00 PM respectively. On account of technical difficulties, the departure time of the bus was rescheduled to 6.00 PM and such fact was also intimated to the complainant vide text message dated 04.06.2018. Despite the complainant and his family members did not report at the boarding point for the  reason best known to them. Alternative proposal was given to the complainant. Despite that the complainant did not accept alternative proposal. The complainant is responsible for the situation for which the OPs cannot be made liable, much less on the ground of deficiency in service. In short, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with Reasons

            Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit and they have also given reply against the  questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed their BNAs.

            Fact remains undisputed that the complainant had booked 05 AC Volvo Bus ticket vide PNR 77228631 to travel from Puri to Kolkata on 11.05.2017 operated by the OPs, departing at 7 PM. The main grievance of the complainant is that they arrived the boarding point at Puri but found that the AC Volvo Bus had already departed before its schedule time for which the complainant compelled to purchase tickets from OSRTC. The acts and activities of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service. On the contrary, the OPs denied the grievance of the complainant on the ground that on account of technical difficulties the departure time of the said bus was rescheduled at 6 pm and such fact was intimated to the complainant vide text message dated 04.06.2018. Despite that the complainant and his family members did not report at the boarding point for the reason based known to them. The complainant refused to accept alternative proposal of the OPs. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

It appears from annexure P-12 that the complainant purchased AC Volvo Bus ticket for 05 persons on payment of Rs. 4,650/- on 11.05.18 to depart from Puri to Kolkata and the date of departure of the said bus was 09.06.2018. It further appears from the said ticket that the reporting time and departure time of the said bus was at   6.30 PM and 7 PM respectively.  

            It is also true that the said bus was rescheduled at 6.00 PM on 09.06.2018. Photocopy of message dated 04.06.2018 annexed with the WV goes to show that intimation of reschedule of bus was communicated to the complainant. On perusal of the said text message, we find that the name of the person who sent the text message has not been mentioned. There is no dispute that the complainant and his family members having no other alternative purchased 04 tickets from OSRTC and arrived Kolkata on the following morning. The OPs did not accommodate the complainant and his family members in other bus to reach their destination at Kolkata though the OPs have taken a plea that alternative proposal was given to the complainant but he refused to accept such proposal. There is no piece of evidence to that effect regarding alternative proposal. Therefore, in absence of material proof from the side of the OPs, we cannot accept its contention as a gospel truth. If the OPs made no such attempt, the buck stops as its door; OPs cannot side steps its entire liability attributing the reschedule time of said bus.

Put together, there seems reasonable ground to believe that simply on account of lack of whether withal on the part of the staff of  OPs, the complainant had to endure too much harassment, not to speak about the incidental financial loss which was quite substantial in monetary term.  A consumer cannot be left in the lurch on account of the systematic lacuna of the service provider. Alas, the OPs miserably failed to rose to the occasion.

According to section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act, 1986, “deficiency” means any fault, in perfection, short coming or in adequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being enforce has been undertaken to be perform by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Despite being  fully aware of the fact that the reporting time of the AC Volvo Bus was at 6.30 PM on 09.06.2017 and the complainant including  his family members arrived  at the boarding point prior to reporting time, the OPs did not lend due co-operation to the complainant in a bizarre so of antipathy towards public good. No doubt, it is clear instant of gross negligence of gross deficiency on the part of the OPs.  For this very reason, in our considered opinion that the OPs cannot avoid making the good the loss suffered by the complainant. Thus, the we find clear deficiency in service with the meaning of 2 (1) (g) & (o) of the CP Act, 1986.

In the result, the consumer case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the consumer case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- being payable by the OPs to the complainant.

The OPs are  jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 4,450/- to the complainant for the financial loss suffered by him, besides immense harassment mental and physical test and agony and endured in the matter,  we direct the OPs to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the aforesaid amount along with litigation and compensation to the complainant within 45 days from today in default; the complainant may put the order in execution by filing application U/ss. 25 and 27 of the CP Act, 1986.