Orissa

Cuttak

CC/316/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Tigga - Opp.Party(s)

self

23 Feb 2024

ORDER

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

C.C. No.316/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

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

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

 

                                                Vrs.

Sandeep Tigga,

S/o: Prabhu Dayal Tigga,

At:Jagada Part,Jagada,

                                  Rourkela,Pin-769042.                                         ...Opp.Party.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:     18.09.2023

Date of Order:   23.02.2024

 

For the complainant:             Self.

For the O.P.               :             None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint in short is that on 20.01.2023 he had undertaken journey from Nuagaon to Jharipani(Rourkela) for a distance of 8 Kms in a bus bearing Regd.No.OD-14E-2888.  But according to the complainant, he was charged excess bus fare as he was asked to pay R.40/- instead of the actual price towards the bus fare.  He had protested for such excessive bus fare but neither the bus authorities nor the Govt. authorities had paid any heed to his protest.  It is for the said reason, he had issued legal notice to the O.P on 28.2.2023 and ultimately he has filed his complaint petition seeking refund of his bus fare of Rs.40/- as paid by him to the O.P alongwith a sum of Rs.95,500/- towards compensation from the O.P for his mental agony and harassment.  He has also demanded the cost of his litigation and has prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

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

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dated 9.11.2023.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Points no.I & II.

Out of the three points to be proved here in this case, for the sake of convenience points no.i & ii  are taken up together  first for consideration here in this case.

The main grievance of the complainant in this case is that on 20.1.2023 while he was travelling in the bus of the O.P. from Nuagaon to Jharipani(Rourkela), the conductor of  the bus belonging to the O.P  had collected excess bus fare to the tune of Rs.40/- from him instead of the actual price.   Though he had raised his protest before the O.P but no action was taken by him.  The complainant has filed copy of a ticket showing bus fare of Rs.40/- in respect of bus No. OD-14E-2888 on 20.1.2023 from Nuagaon to Jharipani(Rourkela).  The complainant has not adduced any evidence in order to prove that it was he who was travelling from Nuagaon to Jharipani(Rourkela) on 20.1.2023 in the bus bearing Regd. No. OD-14E-2888 and that the said bus belongs to the O.P and that the copy of the bus ticket as filed by him, belongs to the bus of the O.P.  There is also no documentary evidence to that aspect filed by the complainant to show that the distance between Nuagaon to Jharipani(Rourkela) is actually how many kilometres and what should have been the actual fare for the same distance.  Thus, the claim of the complainant that he was travelling in the bus belonging to the O.P on 20.1.2023 and that he had paid excess bus fare that day to the tune of Rs.40/- to the bus of the O.P cannot be said to have been amply proved here in this case.   As such, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case as because he could not file cogent evidence here in order to substantiate his case.  So, the question of deficiency of service on the part of O.P as alleged is not established here in this case.   Accordingly, the case of the complainant also cannot be said to be maintainable here in this case.  Thus, these pertinent points are answered against the complainant.

 

Point no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, 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 exparte against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of February under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President                    

                                                                                 

                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member