1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 17.10.2014 he went to Malkangiri Bus Stand for advance booking of two number of seats from Malkangiri to Aska and on demand he paid Rs. 940/- to the Opp. Party No. 1 and was issued with two numbers of tickets from the Opp. Party No.1, but due sudden sickness, he postponed his journey and asked for refund of amount for the said two number of tickets but the O.P.No.1 refused to refund the said amount, finding no other way, the complainant retuned back.It is also submitted that on the next day the complainant made advance booking of two tickets through Net for their journey on 19.10.2014 from Malkangiri to Aska, he surprised to know that the bus fare was Rs. 758/- excluding the net charges and the gross value of the ticket for two number of seats was Rs. 810/- from Malkangiri to Aska.After he returns from his journey, he asked for the reasons to the O.Ps No. 1, but the O.P.No.1 failed to give any explanation.Thus with other contentions, alleging deficiency in service, mental agony and physical harassment, the complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Psto refund the bus fare of Rs. 940/- and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 though received the notice of this Forum on dated  11.11.2014, did not choose to file his counter and written version nor like to participate in the hearing, inspite of several opportunities provided to him for his submission, the O.P.No.1 did not take any step for his submissions.  Hence, we lost opportunities to hear from him, so the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged from the side of Opp. Party No. 1.
    
3. On the other hand, the Opp. Party No. 2 appeared in this case, filed their written version denying the allegations of the complainant stated that there is no such provision of refund of advance booking amount for the issued tickets.  Further it is contended that the O.P. No. 1 has taken booking counter on franchise basis as per the agreement made with the Head Office, OSRTC, Bhubaneswar and for that the O.P.No.2 is no way related to this litigation and his name is required to delete from this case and with other submission, the O.P.No. 2 prayed this Forum to dismiss the case with costs.
    
4. Parties have filed certain documents alongwith affidavit in support of their submissions.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs at length and perused the materials available on record.
    
5. In the instant case, purchase of two number of tickets by the complainant on dated 17.10.2014 for Rs. 910/- vide ticket serial no. 166 and issue of tickets through Net vide no. AA61269 dtd. 19.10.2014 are admitted one.  The submissions of complainant is that on 17.10.2014 he purchased two number of tickets for the journey from Malkangiri to Aska from the Opp. Party No. 1 and paid Rs. 940/- and was issued with ticket vide its serial no. 166, but due to sudden sickness, he postponed his journey and while he asked for refund of the booking amount, the O.P. No. 1 refused to refund the same, for which the complainant returned back.  On the next day, the complainant again booked for advance two number of OSRTC tickets through Net for the journey on 19.10.2014 from Malkangiri to Aska and found that the gross bus fare of two number of tickets from Malkangiri to Aska is for Rs. 810/-, being asked the reasons for the difference between the bus fare, the O.P.No.1 did not reply any satisfactory answer to the complainant. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 admitted about the issue of two numbers of tickets on two different dates and stated that the tickets issued by the O.P.No.1 with excess fare was not informed so far to him by the complainant and the O.P. No. 2 has no administrative control over the O.P.No.1, as the O.P.No.1 was made an agreement on 10.08.2012 with their Head Office, OSRTC, Bhubaneswar and as per the said agreement, the O.P.No.1 is only answerable to the DTM (A), Jeypore and to the Corporate Office for day to day activity.Further, the O.P.No.2 has contended that there is no such provision of refund of fare for any cancelled tickets. On observations over the agreement dtd. 10.08.2012, we found that the submissions of O.P. No. 2 is well corroborated with the agreement dated. 10.08.2012 made between the O.P.No.1 with the Head Office of OSRTC, Bhubaneswar.Hence there is no doubt that the O.P.No.2 has no direct control over the O.P.No.1 but it cannot be denied that the O.P.No.2 being the representative of their Head Office posted in this area, cannot  strictly check the illegal method adopted by the O.P.No.1.In the case in hand, the O.P.No.2 should have a close eye over the illegal method practiced by the franchiser under the OSRTC, in the local area, for which, no passenger like the complainant sustained mental agony and physical harassment as well as financial loss.
           
6. Further on emphasizing the provisions of agreement dated 10.08.2012, the O.P.No.2 stated that the O.P.No. 1 is only responsible for issue of manual tickets and excess fare taken by him.  We have carefully gone through the agreement dtd. 10.08.2012 filed by the O.P.No.2, wherein the clauses no. 5, 14 & 18 clearly indicate that : Clause 5 à That, the agent shall issue tickets to the traveling public in the Computer through e-booking system, on payment of require amount pre-paid or post-paid as the case may be, which shall be fixed from time to time. Clause 14 à That, the agent shall b personally responsible for the liability to be incurred arising out of issue of tickets by him.. He / she shall satisfy the claim if any passed by the law court or any loss sustained by the Corporation relating to discharge of his duty.   It shall be responsibility of the agent to satisfy the claim arising out of his action or action of his employees. Clause 18 àThat, the agent shall abide by the fare structure fixed by the Government from time to time under implementation in OSRTC.  Under no circumstances he/she shall charge higher amount from any of the commuters.  If any allegations of charging excess amount than the prescribed fare is found to be true, the Agent shall be summarily dis-engaged.
   
           Form the above provisions of the said agreement, it can be safely concluded that the O.P.No.1 has agreed for any consequences occurred due to his own fault and the OSRTC has no liability for the same.   Therefore, the liability for illegal method adopted by the O.P.No.1 is only goes to him.   

7. Further, as per the said agreement dtd. 10.08.2012, it is ascertained that one Pramila Dhanphul, W/o Sri Mohan Kumar Dhanphal, Near Sub-Collector Office, Malkangiri has entered into an agreement with the OSRTC, Bhubaneswar, and also it is found from the record that one Chhabi Das has received the notice, who was attended the advance ticket counter on the day of service of notice, as such it is presumed that said Chhabi Das is a sub-agent of the O.P.No.1 and said fact was also submitted by the O.P.No.2 at the time of hearing.
    
8. Further from the above referred two numbers of tickets issued on two different dates, clearly shows that the O.P.No.1 has taken excess fare from the complainant i.e. for Rs. 130/- by violating the provisions of the agreement dtd. 10.08.2012.  On the other hand the claim of complainant in regard to refund of Rs. 940/- taken by the O.P.No.1 is not sustainable, as the tickets issued through Net clearly indicates that “tickets once booked cannot be cancelled” which is also submitted by the O.P.No.2.  However, by receiving excess fare, the O.P.No.1 has himself proved the deficiency in service and unfare trade practice on his part.  

9. In the case in hand, the complainant is an indentified customer of OSRTC, whereas, there are so many unidentified customers who must have suffered mental agony and financial loss due to such type of unfare trade practice followed by the agents.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and financial loss, for which he has filed this case incurring some expenditures, as such he is entitled some compensation and costs.  Considering his suffering, we feel a sum of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order. 

ORDER

That the complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P.No.1 being only liable is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 130/- towards excess fare taken by him and to pay Rs. 3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.         

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 14^th day of November, 2017.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.