Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad in consumer complaint no.149/09 dated 20/04/2010.
Facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under:-
Respondent/Original complainant is a Consumer Organization and in the capacity of the Chairman of the said organization, respondent/original complainant had filed the consumer complaint against the present appellant. Respondent/org. complainant has stated in his complaint that Government of Maharashtra had issued a G.R. dated 27/7/2004 giving thereby 50% concession to the senior citizens while traveling in the buses operated by the appellant. The said concession is not admissible to the senior citizens in the cities having Corporation or Municipal Council where City bus service is operated by Maharashtra State Transport Corporation. Subsequently, the same facility was extended to the Luxury buses also. It is alleged that the appellants have interpreted the said G.R. in such a way that to exclude the concession given by the State Government. This is primarily done on the State Transport buses starting from Mumbai to Alibag.
Respondent/org.complainant further alleged that this concession is not given in the State Transport buses starting from Mumbai, Dadar and Panvel Depots.
The respondent/original complainant further alleged that one Mr.P.A.Kambli, a senior citizen travelled from Mumbai to Alibag on 11/12/2008. However, he was not given the concession granted by the Government to the senior citizens and, accordingly, the senior citizen Mr.Kambli had complained to the Depot Manager of Alibag.
Further he stated that one Mr.P.P.Raut had travelled by Bus no.MH-20-D-8745 on 04/05/2009. However, the conductor had not given him the concession granted as per the Government Resolution and Mr.Raut had complained to the appellants. However, no cognizance was taken. Respondent/org.complainant further complained that many senior citizens had complained to the respondent/complainant and respondent/complainant had tried to bring the fact to the notice of the appellants. However, the appellants have avoided to give the satisfactory explanation.
The respondent/complainant further alleged that the senior citizens traveling from Mumbai depot for Alibag are not given concession by State Transport on the ground that in MMRDA area the concession is not admissible. In the G.R. whereby concession is given there is no mention of such condition. The original complainant/respondent further alleged that Mumbai-Alibag, Uran-Alibag, Panvel-Alibag buses does not come in the Corporation or Municipal Council areas and hence the interpretation given by the appellants is not correct. Hence the original complainant /respondent had filed the consumer complaint praying that the action on the part of appellants denying the concession given by the Government Resolution to the senior citizens amounts to deficiency and, hence, the senior citizens those who have complained for the deficiencies to the appellants, may please be reimbursed the amount of the concession. The respondent/org. complainant has prayed for cost of `3000/- and `1000/- for the mental agony to one Mr.Kambli and one Mr.Raut.
The present appellant/org.opponent had filed their written version contending that for the grievances of the passengers, there is a different forum and, however, respondent/org.complainant had not availed that remedy and hence as per the law the complaint is not tenable. They further contended that Government Resolution dated 27/07/2004 is not applicable to the State Transport bus service in the Corporation and Municipal council areas. They further contended that the State Transport bus service in Uran, Panvel, Dadar, Kalyan, Thane, Borivali is a city transport done by the State Transport and the area comes under the jurisdiction of the MMRDA and hence it is a City bus service and, hence, the senior citizens have not been given the concession as per the G.R.
Appellant further contended that this action does not constitute the deficiency and hence the complaint may please be dismissed.
District Forum after hearing both the parties has passed an order directing the appellants to grant the concession to the senior citizens travelled by buses starting from Mumbai depot, Mumbai, Dadar, Uran Kurla, Panvel towards the Alibag and Raigad. The appellants should pay the compensation of `7000/- to the complainant and the complainant should spend the same for consumer education and also awarded `3000/- as cost. The order to be implemented within 45 days failing which the interest @5% p.a. till the realization of the amount has been granted. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.
Admittedly, appellants are the officers of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and operates buses through out the State. In the appeal papers there is a G.R. of the State Government dated 27/07/2004. According to said G.R. the concession of 50% in a bus fare is given to the senior citizens having age of 65 years and above. Expenditure on this concession is to be charged on “2041-Tax on vehicle-001-Operation and Administration (01) Establishment (01)(01) Transport Commissioner-43 Financial Aid” and the State Transport should take a reimbursement of this expenditure from the Transport Commissioner. In the said G.R. it is stated that this facility is not available to the Corporations and Municipal Councils where there is a City Bus service operated by the State Transport.
The Government has further extended this facility to the senior citizens of 65 years or above for the Semi Luxury buses by G.R. dated 21/06/2008. In both the G.Rs there is no mention of the MMRDA area. Hence the contention of the appellant that the concession given by the Government by G.Rs dated 27/07/2004 and 21/6/2008 is not applicable to the MMRDA area is not as per the provisions of the Government Resolution or Government policy. Further, as interpreted by the appellants, the State Transport is not operating the City Bus service in Uran, Panvel, Dadar, Kalyan, Thane, Borivali, Alibag and in Mumbai Corporation area also. When the concession is given by the Government and it is to be reimbursed from the Transport Commissioner, the appellants have no authority to stop the same. Under the G.Rs quoted by the appellants i.e.27/07/2004 and 21/06/2008 there is no such provision.
The forum had passed the order taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not find any infirmity in the order. Appeal is without any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Order of the forum is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Dated 29th April, 2011.
