BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 06/03/2010

Date of Order : 29/09/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 140/2010

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

On 23-01-2009, the complainant reserved a passenger ticket with the opposite parties through on line for his journey on 01-02-2009 from Ernakulam to Chennai. The complainant was allotted a ticket for the journey. Though the complainant reported at K.S.R.T.C. Bus station, Ernakulam in time, at the last moment the complainant was informed that the trip was cancelled as the concerned bus had not arrived from Chennai. The opposite parties were aware of the non-arrival of the bus much prior to the departure time. However, they did not inform the complainant, though contact number was collected from him. Due to sudden cancellation of the trip the complainant could not join duty at the night shift of 02-02-2009 on reaching Chennai. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental and physical inconveniences due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties sent a reply stating untenable contentions. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Version of the opposite parties :

The opposite parties admit the reservation of the ticket by the complainant on 31-01-2009 in the bus bearing Registration No. B 466 which was operated from Chennai to Ernakulam. When the bus reached Palakkad due to cut of the axle shaft, the vehicle was stopped. After the repair work, the bus was operated. Because of the delay, the vehicle was not operated on 01-02-2009. The non-operation of the vehicle was informed to the reserved passengers, through the booking clerk at the K.S.R.C. Bus Stand, Ernakulam. The clerk informed the passengers that they can travel in the Pondichery bus which starts at 4 p.m. on the same day and they can travel upto Salem and from Salem, they would get buses to Chennai. The complainant neither travelled in the alternative bus nor received back the bus fare. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on his side. Witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties.

5. The chronological events in this case are as follows :

1. On 23-01-2009, the complainant booked an on line ticket for his journey from Ernakulam to Chennai to travel on 01-02-2009.

2. On 01-02-2009, the complainant duly reported the bus station in time.

3. The opposite parties cancelled the bus to Chennai on 01-02-2009.

4. The opposite parties offered alternative bus on the same day at 4 P.M. to Salem in Pondichery bus.

5. The complainant neither accepted the offer to travel in Pondichery bus nor accepted refund of the bus fare.

6. According to the complainant, he did not accept the offer to travel in Pondichery bus upto Salem, since the opposite parties failed to provide any arrangement for the onward journey to Chennai. It is stated that the opposite parties at least ought to have intimated the cancellation of the bus, through telephone as and when they decided to cancel the trip.

7. On the contrary, the opposite parties contended that the cancellation of the bus was due to the reasons beyond their control. They further contended that except the complainant, the other passengers either opted to travel in the alternative bus or received the bus fare without demur.

8. During cross-examination, DW1 deposed that the axle of the bus was damaged on 01-02-2009 at about 5.30 a.m. But he had received the information only by 12 noon DW1 admitted that he has been collecting the telephone numbers of the passengers at the time of booking and nothing prevented him from intimating the passengers as and when he received the information. It is pertinent to note that in Ext. A2 reply notice it is stated that they have taken disciplinary proceedings against the branch manager as well as their technician for the delay in informing the break down of the bus to the passengers. The above conduct of the opposite parties goes to show that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties in intimating the cancellation of the vehicle to the passengers. In fact, nothing is on record to show that the bus had broken down in Palakkad.

9. Admittedly, the opposite parties had arranged alternative bus to Salem. But the bus would reach at Salem by 11.30 p.m. only. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the onward journey or details thereof from Salem to Chennai. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant due to the deficiency in service on their part. Though, the complainant contended that he could not join his company in the night shift of 02-02-2009, nothing is before us to substantiate the same. However, he had had to suffer mental agony and inconveniences due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties rightly so. We think that a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is enough to adequately abate the agony of the complainant. Ordered accordingly.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Post ::

BY Hand ::