Orissa

Cuttak

CC/317/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sushila Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

self

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.317/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

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

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

 

                                                Vrs.

Sushila Gupta,

C/o: Dular Sahu,

At:Near Telephone Exchange,

​                                 Sundargarh,Dist:Sundargarh,

                                  Pin-770001

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:     18.09.2023

Date of Order:   21.02.2024

 

For the complainant:             Self.

For the O.P.               :             None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                 

Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he was travelling from Sundargarh to Kashbhal(Rourkela) on 11.12.2022 in the bus of the O.P bearing Regd. No.OD-16D-3325 and had paid Rs.100/- towards  the bus fare.  According to him, although the said bus is an ordinary bus, the O.P had collected excess bus fare from him as he had paid Rs.100/- towards the bus fare.  He had drawn attention of the bus owner as well as the authorities concerned in this connection and had also issued legal notice to the O.P on 28.2.2023.  When no fruitful result yielded, the complainant has filed this case against the O.P seeking refund of the bus fare that which he had paid to the O.P to the tune of Rs.100/- and also has claimed to compensate him with a sum of Rs.95,500/- towards his mental agony and harassment and for deficiency of service.  He has further claimed from the O.P the cost of his litigation and has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dt.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, for the sake of convenience points no.i & ii  are taken up together  first for consideration here in this case.

The main allegation of the complainant in this case is that the O.P on 11.12.2023 had collected excess bus fare of Rs.100/- from him instead of the actual price while he was travelling from Sundargarh to Kanshabahal(Rourkela) in the bus of the O.P.  He had raised his protest before the O.P but there was no positive response from the O.P in that aspect.  The complainant has filed copy of a ticket showing bus fare of Rs.100/- in respect of bus No.OD-16D-3325 on 11.12.2023 from Sundargarh to Kanshabahal(Rourkela).  The complainant has not adduced any evidence in order to prove that it was he who was travelling from Sundargarh to Kanshabahal(Rourkela) on 11.12.2023 in the bus bearing Regd. No. No.OD-16D-3325 and 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 filed by the complainant to show that the distance between Sundargarh to Kanshabahal (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 of O.P on 11.12.23 and had paid excess bus fare that day to the tune of Rs.100/- to the bus of O.P cannot be said to have been sufficiently proved here in this case.   As such, the complainant has miserably failed here to prove his case.   When complainant could not properly put forth his grievance by filing cogent evidence here in this case, the question of deficiency of service on the part of O.P as alleged by the complainant, cannot be concluded.   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 21^st day of February under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President                    

                                                                                 

                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member