1)             The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, on 24^th March, 2010 it was public holiday on account of ‘Ram Navami’. On that day, he boarded BEST bus at around 08.45 A.M. bearing route No.66 starting at Sion depot to travel upto Opera House. The complainant had planned of journey to visit several places on that day. Therefore, he opted daily pass. He requested the conductor to give daily pass ticket costing to Rs.20/-. However, the conductor issued daily pass costing Rs.15/-. He had tried to explain the conductor that it was public holiday and he should issue ticket of Rs.20/-. But, the conductor refused and issued ticket of Rs.15/-. The complainant got down at Opera House stop. Due to the mistake of the conductor, the complainant was compelled to buy fresh/new tickets each time during his bus travel on that day. Each of the bus conductor said that daily pass of Rs.15/- purchased by the complainant was not valid. During the journey, the conductor laughed at him and he was subjected to humiliation. Due to mistake of the conductor, the complainant spent approximately Rs.30/- to Rs.50/- extra on that day for subsequent travel. Aggrieved by this incident, on the next day i.e. on 25^th March, 2010, the complainant gave written complaint to the opponent for taking action against the concern conductor. The opponent sent notice dated 20^th April, 2010 and called the complainant on 26^th April, 2010. The complainant attended the hearing and sought compensation of Rs.500/-. On 23^rd July, 2010, the complainant received reply dated 2^nd July, 2010 from opponent stating that they had taken disciplinary/department action against the erring conductor. They informed that there is no provision to give compensation to the passenger. Again, on 24^th July, 2010, the complainant wrote letter to the opponent demanding compensation. The complainant had talk to the officer by name ATC Mr.V.G.Kadam. The complainant could not get justice even though there was deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for compensation of Rs.7,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment, agony and anxiety including the monetary loss suffered by the complainant. He has also prayed for cost of this complaint Rs.3,000/-.

 

2)             The opponent appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service. The opponent received complaint on 25^th March, 2010 from the complainant. Letter dated 20^th April, 2010 was issued to the complainant with a request to attend domestic enquiry at Traffic Office, Dharavi. The complainant attended enquiry on 26^th April, 2010. During summary enquiry against the daily wages bus conductor No.155212, the bus conductor has stated that he was newly appointed and he was not aware about the rules of daily pass therefore inadvertently daily pass of Rs.15/- was issued. He assured that he will not commit such mistake in future. The enquiry officer vide order dated 28^th April, 2010 awarded punishment of censured. The complainant was informed about the disciplinary action taken against the bus conductor and inconvenience to the complainant was regretted. There was no provision for giving compensation to the passenger. The complainant was asked to produce details of traveling tickets. However, the complainant expressed his inability to produce the same. It is denied that the complainant was put to hardship and required to spend extra amount of Rs.30/- to Rs.50/- on that day.

 

3)             After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

 

 

4) Point No.1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that on 24^th March, 2010, there was holiday on account of ‘Ram Navami’ and it was necessary to issue daily pass of Rs.20/- on that day. It is also not disputed that daily pass of Rs.15/- was issued. The opponent has admitted that complaint from complainant was received on 25^th March, 2010 and domestic enquiry was conducted against the conductor and punishment was awarded to the conductor. Whether the punishment awarded to the concern conductor is sufficient or not does not come within the purview of this Forum. The Forum has to decide whether the complainant was compelled to purchase tickets for further journey on that day and whether the complainant incurred expenses for that purpose. As per para 5 and 6 of the complaint, he boarded the bus at Sion depot and got down at Opera House stop. According to the complainant, he was intending to travel further on that day and for that purpose he was compelled to buy fresh ticket at each time. The complainant has no where stated in his complaint or in his letter from where he boarded for the second time on that day and his destination of travel. He has also not stated the amount incurred by him to purchase the ticket for second time and subsequently. He has vaguely stated that he incurred expenses approximately Rs.30/- to Rs.50/-. If he was compelled to purchase the ticket for second time then in natural course, the complainant must have produced the ticket alongwith the complaint. The complainant has not produced any ticket for his subsequent journey. According to the complainant he has not preserved those tickets. It is pertinent to note that on the very next day, the complainant has lodged the complaint with the opponent in writing. Copy of it is produced by the opponent also. On the reverse side of the said complaint, the complainant has given in writing dated 26^th April, 2010. In that writing, the complainant has stated that he had suffered monetary loss of about Rs.20/- as he had to spend on buying new tickets every time. As per the said writing of the complainant, he incurred expenses of Rs.20/- but in complaint he has stated that he incurred expenses of Rs.30/- to Rs.50/-. Thus, the complainant himself is not sure about the exact expenses incurred by him.

 

5)             The complainant lodged the complaint in writing with the opponent on the very next day of the incident. It shows his intention to file complaint against the conductor. In this circumstances, it was necessary for him to preserve the ticket purchased by him for his subsequent travel. In the ordinary course, a prudent man will preserve ticket if he has intention to file complaint. The complainant is not a layman. He has filed several complaints in this Forum as well as in other Forums. Some of them are still pending.The complainant personally is conducting those complaints before the Forum. On this background, he must be aware about the procedure. Not only that the complainant can not say where he was boarded subsequently and the route of his subsequent travel. Thus, the allegations of subsequent travel and the extra expenses incurred by him are vague. As the complainant can not say about the route of his subsequent travel and the expenses incurred by him for subsequent travel, he is not entitled for the compensation as prayed. As there is no proof of his subsequent travel, the allegations of humiliation can not be accepted.

 

6)            The Legal Officer of opponent has submitted that there is no proof of expenses incurred by the complainant therefore he is not entitled for compensation. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Original Petition No.149 of 2001 in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board –Versus- M/s.Shree Polyphase Meters (India) Private Limited & Ors. reported in 2012(1) CPR 58 (NC) decided on 8^th December, 2011. In view of this judgment, loss can not be calculated on the basis of mere presumptions. There must be evidence about the actual loss suffered by the complainant. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1808 of 2011 in the case of Suresh Kumar –Versus- Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Limited reported in 2012(2) CPR 28 (NC) decided on 21^st March, 2012. In para 3 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under :

 

In the instant case before us also, the complainant failed to produce the cogent evidence showing his subsequent travel on that day and the extra expenses incurred by him. Therefore, the complaint is not entitled for compensation as claimed.

 

7)             The complainant in his written notes of argument has claimed compensatory cost. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.502 of 2011 in the case of R.Narasimha Reddy –Versus- Kuchakula Surender Reddy & Ors. decided on 5^th March, 2012 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases-344. In these judgments, the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have directed to award compensatory cost if the claim is allowed. In the instant case before us, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed therefore he is not entitled for the compensatory cost.

 

8)             Thus, even though, it is admitted that daily pass of Rs.15/- was issued instead of Rs.20/- still there is no evidence showing the subsequent travel and the expenses incurred by the complainant on that day. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, the following order.

 

1)                Complaint stands dismissed.

2)                Parties are left to bear their own costs.

3)                Inform the parties accordingly.