IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. Present: K.Vijayakumaran, President. Adv. Ravi Susha, Member. R. Vijayakumar, Member. C.C.NO.247/2008 GEORGE OOMMEN, THATTUPURACKAL, THEVALLY NAGAR NO.22, KOLLAM-691009. .. COMPLAINANT V/S SHYNE BRAHMMA PUTHRA, MEGH TOURS AND TRVELS, OPP. TO KOCHUKODUNGALLOOR TEMPLE, MENATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM-691013. [S. RIYAS, ADV., KOLLAM] .. OPPOSITE PARTY O R D E R R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for refund of Rs.1700/- collected by opp.parties assuring comfortable sleeper berth in the bus sheduled for journey on 18-8-08 and for compensation along with cost. The complainant’s case is that he has approached the opp.party who is the booking agent of Megha Tours and Travels, Thiruvananthapuram to reserve 2 tickets for comfortable sleeper berths from Thiruvananthapuram to Bangalore for his son and his wife in Bus name ‘Yathra’ leaving Thiruvananthapuram at 2.45 PM on 18-8-08. The opp.party, stating that as the agent he has liberty for reserving comfortable sleeper berth, reserved EQ1 and EQ2sleeper berths for Rs.1700/- and issued the journey Reservation Coupon Sl. No.563 dated nil. Complainant’s son and his wife boarded the bus on the specified date and time in his presence but there were no seats by marking EQ1 and EQ2. The sleeper seats were numbered as S1, S2 and so on. Half of accommodation in the bus is semi sleeper seats and the other half is sleeper berths. They have argued with the Manager, Megha Tours and Travels, but he pointed out that they are not in practice of booking rear sleeper berths but this was done as per the request of opp.party. The consumer sustained physical strain, mental agony and could not attend their office next day. They were standing most of the time resulting swelling of leg and severe body pain. It is gathered that the opp.party will get commission from the Thiruvananthapuram office for the rear end seats. Reservation was done one month earlier since the consumers have to attend office work on 19-8-08 itself. The complainant sent an Advocate Notice to the opp.party for refund of amount collected illegally. Opp.party replied with baseless avernments. The act of opp.party is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The I opp.party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The service was availed by the son and daughter-in-law of the complainant. There is no consumer relationship or privity of contract between the complainant and opp.party. The opp.party is only a booking agent of Yathra Travels. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties since the Yathra Travels is not impleaded in the complainant as an opp.party. The complaint is without bonafides. At the time of booking the opp.party informed the complainant that back berths are only available on 18-8-08. Yathra Travels is conducting journeys from Thiruvananthapuram to Bangalore everyday. No passengers so far or ever lodged any complaint against Megha Travels. The complainant is raising wild allegations of physical pain etc, without any concrete evidence. The allegation in Para 3 of complaint that the opp.party will get commission from Thiruvananthapuram office for rear end seats and desire of the parties to have a comfortable sleep and to attend their offices the very next day failed etc. are false and hence denied. Berths were booked fully knowing that they were rear end seats. Intention of the complaint is to drag the opp.party to unwanted legal proceedings. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party and opp.party is not liable to pay compensation and cost. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. II opp.party remained absent. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Ext.P1 marked. From the side of opp.parties DW1 examined. Ext.D1 and D2 marked. The points that would arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party? 2. Compensation and cost. Points I and II Admitted by both parties that the complainant had booked two seats in the said Bus for the journey of complainant’s son and daughter-in-law on 18-8-08 and the numbers of the seats were EQ1 and EQ2. The complainant’s allegation is that the booked seats were not in that Bus. The seats in that Bus were marked as S1 series. The opp.parties contention is that the berths were allowed on emergency quota basis. That is how the tickets came to be numbered as EQ1 and EQ2. Opp.party clarified the situation that only two berths were available in the rear end and those were not comfortable. The complainant voluntarily agreed and paid Rs. 1700/- due to dire necessity of the complainant those berths issued. The case of complainant is that even though he had booked the Berths on 15-7-08, and the date of journey was 18-8-08, the opp.party issued discomfortable berths. The date of Booking is not mentioned in Ext.P1. But opp.party has not challenged that the date of booking was not 15-7-08. The booking date was more than one month before the journey. If it is true that at the time of booking itself opp.party clarified the situation that only two berths were available in the rear end and those were not comfortable, the complainant will seek any other means for a comfortable journey. It is unbelievable even in common sense that the complainant has voluntarily agreed to travel in an uncomfortable berth one month before the date of journey itself. The I opp.party argued that as he is only an agent, he is not responsible for any discomfort and the responsibility is only upon the proprietor. I opp.party has no other liability other than booking. DW.1 has stated in the deposition that the order of his appointment as an agent of opp.party is with him and he is ready to produce that order. But he has not produced that order. Even if he is an agent, the agent along with the principal also liable for the discomfort made to the complainant’s son and his daughter-in-law. We can read the negligent attitude of the I opp.party from his testimony itself. He has deposed that order of the appointment as an agent is with him, but he has no knowledge about the name of the owner of the vehicle. The deposition continues that “complaint dj}juSC,ikA Kmac\Frkaluj >r\Pe\se}jgkr\rk; Phone No. QlGaaujh\h; Seat Kxx pjicb\bxjH tynldkxf\f\ SElN svu\ulykn\m\”; “ulYfl>c\cjH S1, S2 tr\rjb\bsruln\ rA>G SgDe\semkf\fjuj}kxxsfr\r\ eyB\BlH trj]yjujh\h\”; aM\ rA>gkdxkA rHdlykn\m\; -ufjrkxx SgD <lwgl]kSal; dqjujh\h\; “Berth H additional facilities rHdkSal tr\ryjujh\h\; Sheet, blanket tr\rji rHdlykn\smr\rk eyB\BlH trj]yjujh\h\; >c\ckdlgln\ rHdkr\r\f\ ; EQ1, EQ2 tr\r\ rjb\bX eyukr\r rA>gkdxjsh Berth dX]\ sheet, blanket tr\rji rHdjujh\h\ tr\rk eyB\BlH trj]yjujh\h\”; It is unfortunate to say that an agent’s liability ends with the process of Booking and receiving cash. The learned counsel for opp.party argued that the complainant has not produced any report of ailment as alleged by him. No medical certificate is produced to prove the incapacity to attend the duty. No documents are also produced to prove that the said travelers could not attend their office on 19-7-08. The opp.party himself admitted that the berths allotted to the complainant’s son and his daughter-in-law were at the rear end of the bus and one cannot even sit comfortably in those berths. No medical certificate is needed to prove the ailment suffered by a traveler who had traveled in the rear end berth. Every common man can understand the difficulties suffered by a traveler in the rear end seat for a long time and for a long way. The agent or principal cannot escape from their vicarious liability in performing the duties. Here, in this case opp.party 1and 2 are equally liable for the inconvenience made to the complainant. For all that has been discussed above, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to refund Rs.1700/- to the complainant which was collected as ticket charges. The opp.parties are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation Rs.200/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 31st day of December, 2009 INDEX List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1- George Oommen. List of documents for the complainant Ext.P1-Booking Receipt List of witnesses for the opposite party DW.1-Brahmaputhran List of documents for the opposite party Ext.D1- Authorization letter. Ext.D2- Reply Notice. | 
