The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Smt. Sushama Rani Biswal, Sahadevkhunta, Balasore, O.P No.2 is Sk. Safludhin, Artakabiraj Road, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the R.T.A, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being a physically disabled person with 50% disability boarded the state carriage bus namely “Bana Durga” bearing Regd. No.OD-01-8888 on 23.03.2014 from Dharamtala Bus terminal to Balasore bus stand. On the way, the O.P No.2 demanded Rs.240/- (Rupees Two hundred forty) only towards bus fare from the Complainant, where the Complainant produced bus-pass for the disable person issued by Balasore Municipality authorised by Commerce and Transport Department, Govt. of Odisha along with his handicapped certificate and copy of circular dtd.07.11.2012 issued by the Director, Welfare of PWDS, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, where said circular discloses “100% concession to the beneficiaries/ disable persons”. Having gone through the documents, the O.P No.2 acted arrogantly and threatened to drop the Complainant in mid way from the bus, but with intervention of passengers in the bus, the O.P No.2 forcibly took Rs.120/- (Rupees One hundred twenty) only from the Complainant. Due to erratic behaviour of O.P No.2, the Complainant has been humiliated, ashamed and sustained mental injury, thus the O.P No.2 has exceed all humanitarian limitation as well as legal boundaries. The Complainant has brought the matter to the knowledge of the O.Ps in several occasions followed by legal notices to O.P No.1 and 2 through his Advocate, but no response is received yet, even after receipt of legal notice by them. Moreover, the O.P No.3 being a Govt. Officer meant to regulate and look after the law of land is enforced. The Complainant has prayed for compensation from O.P No.1 and 2 along with withdrawal license of O.P No.2 and also with a warning to O.P No.3 to act upon as per Law.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through her advocate denying on the point of maintainability. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the O.P No.1 is the owner of the said Bus bearing No.OD-01-8888. The O.P No.2 has never the employee of the O.P No.1. The O.P No.1 does not know the Complainant. After received the notice of this Forum, the O.P.No.1 was surprised and came to know this matter. The Complainant without any cause and reason, has falsely filed this case against the O.P No.1 only to harass and further for his ill intention. Neither O.P No.1 nor her Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through his advocate denying on the point of maintainability. The O.P No.2 has further submitted that the O.P No.2 was not the conductor of the said Bus bearing No.OD-01-8888. The O.P No.2 has never employee of the O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 does not know the Complainant. After received the notice of this Forum, the O.P.No.2 was surprised and came to know this matter. The Complainant without any cause and reason, has falsely filed this case against the O.P No.2 only to harass and further for his ill intention. Neither O.P No.2 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    5. Though the O.P No.3 has appeared through his Advocate, but has not filed his written version in this case. The O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.

                    6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    7. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that while travelling in the bus of the O.P No.1, wherein the O.P No.2 is the Conductor of the bus at the relevant time, details of which has been mentioned in the complaint petition, the O.P No.2 demanded the fare of Rs.240/- (Rupees Two hundred forty) only in spite of disclosing of disability certificate of the Complainant and eligible for exemption of fare, the O.P No.2 forcibly took Rs.120/- (Rupees One hundred twenty) only from the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.P No.2 and the O.P No.1 is also jointly and severally liable for the same. The documents filed by the Complainant disclosed about disability of 50% and entitlement for 100% concession. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 though filed written version, denying the plea of the Complainant and remained absent and also did not take part in hearing of this case. In their pleading, the O.P No.1 took the plea that she does not know the O.P No.2 and vice versa. So, there is no sufficient reason on the part of the O.Ps to remain absent at the time of hearing. The O.P.No.3 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier.

                    8. So, in the circumstances, on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I found no reasonable ground to disbelieve the plea of the Complainant and moreover, when it is supported by affidavit, so it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps No.1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable for the alleged act and they are also liable for refund of Rs.120/- (Rupees One hundred twenty) only along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the whole amount i.e. the refundable amount and compensation from the date of order till realization. The O.P No.3 is no more liable in this case. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps No.1 and 2 with cost and the case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.3 without cost. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.120/- (Rupees One hundred twenty) only along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the whole amount i.e. the refundable amount and compensation from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize his claim from the O.Ps No.1 and 2 under due procedure of Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps No.1 and 2 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 7th day of August, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.