IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 28th day of February, 2011
Filed on 18.01.2005
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No.15/2005
between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
1. Sri. Jayan. P. 1. Sri.Ajayakumar. S.
Jaya Bhavan, Aayaparambu Conductor, KSRTC
Karuvatta (Via), Alappuzha Alappuzha Depot
(By Adv. K.B.Harshakumar)
2. Smt. Vijayasree 2. The Managing Director
-do- -do- KSRTC., Transport Bhavan
(By Adv. Vidhu M. Unnithan) Thiruvananthapuram
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case succinctly is as follows: - The complainants are spouse to each other. They are practicing lawyers of Allappuzha Bar. The complainants along with their infant on 6th January 2005 were travelling in the K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.KL-15/1055. The 1st complainant was carrying the child. Hence he took a little time to draw money from his purse to purchase the ticket from the 1st opposite party, the conductor in the material bus. Pursuant to which the I st opposite party abused the complainants and misbehaved with him. The 1st opposite party used distasteful language and gestures and was hesitant to hand back the balance amount of the ticket to the complainants. When the bus reached Alappuzha station, the ruffled complainants approached the controlling Inspector for lodging a complainant against the badly behaved opposite party. At this point too, the 1st opposite party came over to the spot to repeat the same repulsive conduct. At this juncture, the 2nd complainant gently got in the way and requested the opposite party to behave himself. The opposite party turned his rage towards the 2nd complainant and used filthy language to threaten her. Being the higher official of the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party is also liable for the illegal acts of the 1st opposite party. The acts of the opposite parties inflicted immense mental agony to the complainants. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2 On notice being served the opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions. The opposite parties' contention is that it was the complainant who misbehaved with the 1st opposite party. The complainant in the guise of having their child with him unreasonably delayed the availing of the trip-ticket. When the 1st opposite party requested the complainant to take ticket, the complainant berated the opposite party, the opposite parties contend. On taking the ticket the complainant ridiculed the opposite party depicting him as living on the unpaid balance amount of the commuters. According to the opposite parties, it was the complainant who abused the 1st opposite party with intimidating words. The complainants being lawyers lodged a flurry of false complaints before every authority with a view to harass and humiliate the 1st opposite party. The vigilance wing of K.S.R.T.C carried out enquiry on the basis of the complaint preferred by the complainants and found that the version of the complainants with regard to the alleged incident is baseless. The opposite party sustained harassment and humiliation at the hands of the complainants. The complainants are not entitled to any relief, the opposite parties fervently contend.
3. The complainants’ evidence consists of the testimony of the 1st complainant as PW1 and that of the 2nd complainant as PW2, and the documents Exts. Al to A4 were marked. On the, side of the opposite parties RWl to RW3 were examined, and the documents were marked as Exts. B1 and B4.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party inflicted mental agony and harassment to the complainant?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
6. The complainants’ case is that the complainants boarded the material bus from Pathirappally to come over to Alappuzha. Since the 1st complainant was holding their infant, it was virtually inconvenient for him to avail the ticket from the 1st opposite party instantaneously on his demand. When the complainants took some time to pay the fare, the 1st opposite party used disagreeable words against the complainants. The 1st opposite party abused the complainants even on the spot wherein they were preferring a complaint against the opposite party. Contrary to the complainants’ allegations, the 1st opposite party contends that the complainants caused unreasonable gradualness in paying the journey charge and caused willful inconvenience to the opposite party in discharging his duties. According to the opposite parties, the complainants made mockery of the 1st opposite party in front of the other travelers. The vigilance wing of the K.S.R.T.C conducted an enquiry and found the allegations of the complainants unfounded. The complainants taking the leverage of being lawyers lodged manifold complaints before multiple authorities, the opposite parties contend. Keeping the contentions of the parties lively in mind, we carefully went through the complaint, version, affidavits and all other materials brought on record by the parties. On an appreciation of the premise of the material incident in which both the parties seemed to have been involved, it appears that some sort of squabble must have sprang up with regard to the taking of the ticket on each other's convenience. Of course, the parties might have exchanged disheartening words slightly ruffling each other's emotions. Notwithstanding on effecting a searching survey of the entire materials, except for the same, we find no smattering of evidence that show before us that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. We are of the firm view that a tumult of feelings grown out from the aforesaid incident regarding the procuring of ticket might have driven the parties to fight for preeminence which later led to the inevitable taking up of the matter before different authorities by both the parties. Even though this might have been the possible circumstance, we must observe that taking into account the 1st opposite party's nature of duty, it was the 1st opposite party who is more expected to maintain restraint and to demonstrate courteousness to the passengers. Of course, the interior of a passenger vehicle is not a place for playing cat and mouse -game. We necessarily feel that we need not elaborate further. However, as we have already observed, since it is not infolded that there was deficiency on the part of the service of the opposite party, we regret, we have no course open but to reject the complainant case.
7. For the forgoing facts and finding of the present case herein above, we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed.
The complaint is disposed accordingly. The parties are left to bear with their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jayan P. (Witness)
PW2 - Sarathchnadralal (Witness)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Ajayakumar.S. (Witness)
RW2 - Baburaj (Witness)
RW3 - P.J. Varghese (Witnes)
Ext.B1 - Photo copy of the FIR
Ext.B2 - Photo copy of the letter dated 6.1.2005, 8 p.m.
Ext.B3 - Deposition of Conductor Baburaj
Ext.B4 - Statement of Station Master P.J. Varghese (Photo copy)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
