Orissa

Cuttak

CC/86/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

RTO,Sundargarh - Opp.Party(s)

B Kar & associates

07 Feb 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.86/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

           S/o: Simanchal Rath,Plot No.3C/876,Sector-10,

                           CDA,Cuttack-753014.                                                     ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.     Regional Transport Officer,Sundargarh,

At/PO: ,Sundargarh,Dist: ,Sundargarh.

 

2.     Kishori Sarangi,Owner,Sarangi Bus,

C/o: Dilip Kumar Sarangi,At:Bhabanipur,Sankara,

                     Sundargarh-770001,

Bearing Bus No.OD-16J-6336,(Under RTO O.P. No.1),

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

 

3.     Secretary,Govt of Odisha,

    Commerce and Transport Department,

At:Kharvela 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:  07.02.2024

 

For the complainant:           Self.

For the O.Ps 1 & 3    :          Mr. P.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.   

For the O.P No.2       :           Mr. H.P.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.  

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                           

Case of the complainants as made out from his complaint petition in short is that on 10.12.2022 while the complainant was travelling in a bus from Sundargarh to Rourkela which was for a distance of 90 kms, he was charged Rs.130/- towards the bus fare.  According to the complainant, the bus fare as charged from him is in excess of the prescribed price.  He had raised his complaint before the bus owner through Whatsapp message, sent legal notice to him on 28.2.2023 and ultimately when no fruitful result yielded, he has filed this case against the O.Ps for being charged exorbitantly and has thus claimed refund of the Bus fare as paid by him to the tune of Rs.130/- together with a compensation of Rs.95,500/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  He has also prayed for cost of his litigation and for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

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

2.       All the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case have contested this case, but O.Ps no.1 & 3 have conjointly filed their written version whereas O.P no.2 has filed his separate written version. 

          According to the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 3 the complainant has filed complaint on false and frivolous grounds which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost being not maintainable.  The O.Ps no.1 & 3 have further urged that the complainant has mentioned that excess bus fare was collected from him by the owner of the Bus bearing Regd. No.OD-16K-6555 but the complainant had made owner of Bus bearing No.OD-16J -6336 as a party in this case.  Thus, according to the said O.Ps, the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands for which they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          According to the written version of O.P no.2, the case of the complainant is not also maintainable which is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action and the complainant has suppressed the material facts.

          O.P no.2 alongwith his written version has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

          The complainant has also filed his evidence affidavit here in this case but the same when perused, appears to be the reiteration of the contents of his complaint petition and nothing else.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps, 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?

Issue no.i.

Out of the three issues, issue no.i  being a pertinent issue, is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written versions, the written notes of submissions filed by the O.Ps and also the evidence affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant has purged through his complaint petition that on 10.12.2022 while travelling from Sundergarh to Rourkela he was charged excess amount of Bus fare to the tune of Rs.130/- for a distance of 90 Kms. and it should not have been done.  To substantiate the same, while perusing the copies of documents as filed by the complainant here in this case, it appears that his sole contention of the complainant is upon Annexure-2 which appears to be a Bus fare receipt of Sarangi VERGANT Fay which reflects that on 10.12.2022 an amount of Rs.130/- was paid by someone and the Bus Registration number appears to be therein as OD-16J-6336.  That apart, there is absolutely no convincing evidence to apprise this Commission that infact the complainant had undertaken journey on 10.12.2022 from Sundargarh to Rourkela and had paid Rs.130/- as Bus fare to the said SARANGI VERGANT FAY bus; which is in excess of the actual prescribed bus fare.  The findings of this Commission cannot be based on conjectures and surmises but there should be sufficient evidence led so as to prove that infact the complainant Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath had undertaken journey from Sundargarh to Rourkela in the said Sarangi VERGANT Fay Bus bearing Red. No.OD-16J-6336 on 10.12.2022 and that he was charged a sum of Rs.130/- and that the same amount was in excess of the actual fare which was to be charged from him.  Moreso, there is also no signature of the conductor of the bus therein as noticed while perusing Annexure-2.  Thus, a cloud of doubt covers the said piece of evidence annexed as Annexure-2.  Accordingly, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that the complainant has utterly failed to establish his case and the same can never be said to be maintainable here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no. Ii & iii.

From the discussions as made above, there is no deficiency of service made out here in this case against any of the Opp. Parties and the complainant is accordingly not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

                                              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 7^th day of February,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member