DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 19.05.2022.
CC/85/2022
Dr.Asha Marina Kuriakose, - Complainant
W/o.Ajusheri, Chanthuruthil House,
Chettikulam, Irattakulam (PO),
Nalleppilly, Palakkad district.
(By Adv.U.Suresh)
VS
Kerala Road Transport Corporation, -Opposite Party
Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Chairman
And Managing Director.
(By Adv.G.Shaji)
ORDER
BY SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant booked two tickets through online on 08.05.2022 in Kottayam-Coimbatore KSRTC Superfast for travelling to Palakkad on 09.05.2022. The transaction reference number was OB79000559 and she remitted Rs.521/- towards ticket fare.
On 09.05.2022, the complainant and her husband boarded the bus and when they enquired about their seat number the conductor did not respond. Later, he informed that their name is not in the reservation list and they had no other way and were forced to take ticket again by paying Rs.494/-. When the bus reached Thrissur Bus Stand, the conductor asked them to vacate the seat as it is for the passenger who reserved from Thrissur. They vacated the seats and since there was no vacant seats available for them, they approached the Depot officer of Thrissur stand and complained about this. At that time, the bus started without the complainant and her husband and they had to take ticket again by spending Rs.164/- for travelling to Palakkad in another bus.
Due to the deficiency in service and negligent and arrogant attitude of the staff of the opposite party, the complainant and her husband suffered mental stress and inconvenience.
The opposite party is responsible for the financial and time loss and inconvenience suffered by them. So, she approached this Commission for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for the losses suffered.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party in their version denied the complaint averment that two tickets were booked online on 08.05.2022 in the Kottayam-Coimbatore Superfast Bus for travel on 09.05.2022 and Rs.521/- was remitted towards ticket fare. The fact is that one Mr.Aju Shiri tired for booking two tickets in the above mentioned bus through online site keralartc.com and thereby a transaction request reference No.OB7900559 was given to the complainant through mail. It only shows transaction request. The reservation process was not completed and the tickets were not generated, hence the complainant and her husband’s name were not included in the reservation chart. Since the request reference failed, tickets were not reserved. It is only when PNR number is generated, seat booking is completed and the e-mail/sms containing details such PNR number, Trip code, seat number, pick up date and time is sent to the passenger. No amount is credited to opposite party’s account from the account of the complainant or her husband. The complainant has not claimed for refund of the ticket fare as she is well aware of the fact.
The complainant and her husband took the ticket for the first time by paying Rs.494/- since they are unreserved passengers.
The complainant and her husband started journey from Kottayam to Palakkad in the superfast bus in seat numbers 6 and 7, just behind the front door. When the bus reached Thrissur, the conductor asked them to vacate seat No.6 as it was reserved by a passenger named Gouri Nanda for travelling to Coimbatore. They vacated both the seats at their own will and other seat was also occupied by another unreserved passenger. Thereafter, they complained about this to the duty station master and Traffic Controlling inspector in Thrissur Depot. At that time, nobody had misbehaved to them as alleged.
As the conductor was duty bound to protect the interest of other passengers and to reach the destination on time, the bus continued the journey. Since there was no vacant seats available for them, the complainant and her husband continued their journey in another bus.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not reserved seats for travelling and she had to take ticket. The opposite party has no responsibility to assure seats for the unreserved passengers.
The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and it has to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the complainant had effected reservation of tickets with the opposite party?
` 2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in charging Rs.494/- for the tickets?
3) Whether there is any other deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5) Reliefs if any, as cost and compensation?
5. The case was posted for settlement; but not settled. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from her side. Marking of Ext.A1 is objected to on the ground that its nomenclature is wrongly stated as a ticket whereas it is a transaction request. Opposite party filed an application IA No.320/2023 to cross examine the complainant and it was allowed. Complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.B1 to B4 in evidence. Marking of Exts.B1 to B4 are objected to on the ground that they does not accompany Section 65B certification. Later, opposite party produced Section 65B certification. Ext.B2 is further objected to on the ground that it is an incomplete document since serial nos. 7 to 10 are missing. Complainant filed IA.No.678/2023 to cross examine the opposite party and it was allowed. Witness of the opposite party, District Officer, KSRTC, Palakkad was examined as DW1. Evidence closed and heard. Both parties filed notes of argument.
6. Point No.1
The complainant’s case is that on 08.05.2022 the complainant’s husband booked two tickets through online with the opposite party in the KSRTC Kottayam-Coimbatore Superfast bus. The date of travel was 09.05.2022 and they got a transaction reference number OB7900559 for the booking and remitted Rs.521/- towards ticket fare.
The opposite party contended that it is true that one Aju Shiri tried for booking two tickets in the Kottayam-Coimbatore KSRTC Superfast bus on 08.05.2022 through their online site. Keralartc.com and thereby a transaction request reference No.OB7900559 was given to the complainant through mail. It only shows a transaction request and the reservation process was not completed and the tickets were not generated and hence, the complainant and her husband’s name were not included in the reservation chart. Further, the person attempted to book ticket can check whether the transaction is success or failed one.
7. Complainant produced the copy of “E-ticket OB Ref” issued by the opposite party which is marked as Ext.A1. The marking of Ext.A1 is objected to on the ground that is not a ticket and only a transaction request.
In Ext.A1, Transaction Reference Number is shown as OB7900559 and total ticket amount: Rs.521/-. But in this E-Ticket, passenger name, Trip name and code and seat numbers are not mentioned.
The opposite parties produced Ext.B3, the printout of the Transaction Reference Number which shows the Transaction status as “FAILURE”. The marking of their document was objected as it was not accompanied by Section 65B certification. But later the opposite party produced certification under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The opposite party further contends that only when PNR number is generated the booking would be started and if it is completed then it would contain PNR no., Trip code, Seal no, Pick up time, date etc and it is sent to the passenger through SMS or mail. No amount is credited to the opposite party’s account from the account of the complainant or her husband. PW1 during her cross examination deposed that (page No.2) ബുക്ക് ചെയ്തപ്പോൾ അക്കൗണ്ടിൽനിന്ന്പണം പോയതായി മെസ്സേജ് കണ്ടിട്ടില്ല. സംഖ്യ പോയി എന്നത് എനിക്ക് ഉറപ്പില്ല. PNR വച്ചോ, Tripcode വച്ചോ, Service origin വച്ചോ, Service destination വച്ചോ, seat number വച്ചോ ടിക്കറ്റ് കിട്ടിയില്ല. അക്കൗണ്ടിൽ നിന്ന് പണം പോയി എന്ന തർക്കം ഇല്ല.” Further, they have not produced any evidence showing the payment of Rs.521/-.
8. So, from the evidence, it is clear that no amount has been credited to opposite party’s account as ticket fare and the reservation is not complete. Point No.1 is found in favour of the opposite party.
9. Point No.2
As per the conclusion arrived at in point No.1; the complainant and her husband had not completed the reservation of their ticket and no amount is transferred to the opposite party as ticket fare. So, they were asked to take ticket and pay the amount during travel. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in charging Rs.494/- for the ticket.
10. Point No.3
Complainant’s further allegation is that when the bus reached KSRTC, Thrissur, Bus stand, the conductor asked them to vacate seat No.6, in which one of the them was sitting, for a reserved passenger. The complainant further states the conductor did not inform them that the said seat was reserved. There is nothing wrong in getting the seat vacated for a reserved passenger. As per opposite party’s pleadings, “സീറ്റ് റിസർവേഷൻ സൗകര്യമുള്ള ബസ്സ് ആണെന്ന് ബോധ്യമുണ്ടായിട്ടും തങ്ങൾ റിസർവ്വ് ചെയ്ത യാത്രക്കാരല്ല എന്ന് ബോധ്യപെട്ടിട്ടും പ്രസ്തുത സീറ്റുകൾ റിസർവ്വ് ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടതാണോയെന്നും റിസർവ്വ് ചെയ്യാത്ത സീറ്റുകൾ ഉണ്ടോയെന്നും ഹർജിക്കാരിയോ സഹയാത്രികനോ കണ്ടക്ടറോട് അന്വേക്ഷിക്കുകയുണ്ടായില്ല.”
11. Eventhough as per the opposite party’s pleadings, the passengers are to ensure whether the seats occupied by them are reserved or whether any unreserved seats are available for them, during cross examination DW1 had turned around and deposed that there is a duty cast on the conductor to inform the passengers about the vacant unreserved seats and to give tickets to that seats. (Page 4 of deposition) “പരാതിക്കാരിയും ഭർത്താവും ടിക്കറ്റ് എടുക്കുന്ന സമയം 6,7 സീറ്റുകളിലാണ് ഇരുന്നിരുന്നത്. ടിക്കറ്റ് എടുക്കുന്ന സമയം 6-)o നമ്പർ സീറ്റിൽ തൃശൂർ മുതൽ കോയമ്പത്തൂർ വരെ റിസർവേഷൻ ഉള്ള വിവരം കണ്ടക്ടർക്ക് അറിയാമായിരുന്നു. ടിക്കറ്റ് കൊടുക്കുന്ന സമയം അപ്രകാരം അറിയിക്കാൻ കണ്ടക്ടർ ബാധ്യസ്ഥനുമായിരുന്നു എന്ന കാര്യം ശരിയാണ്.” Further (in page No.3 of deposition), he has stated that അന്നേ ദിവസം Ext.B2 പ്രകാരം കോട്ടയത്തു നിന്നും പാലക്കാട് വരെ റിസർവേഷൻ ഇല്ലാത്ത സീറ്റുകൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്. (Ext.B2 shown to witness) റിസർവേഷൻ ഇല്ലാത്ത ആൾക്കാർക്ക് vacant സീറ്റുകളിലേക്കാണ് ടിക്കറ്റ് നൽകുക എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്. Ext.B2-നെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് ആ ബസിലെ കണ്ടക്ടർക്കും ഡിപ്പാർട്മെന്റിനും മാത്രം അറിയാവുന്ന രേഖയാണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്.”
Here, the conductor failed to inform the complainant and husband about this. While complaining about this in Thrissur Depot, the bus started and they had to travel in another bus by taking ticket.
So, the omission on the part of the conductor to inform about the reserved seats in advance and making them to occupy vacant seats is a deficiency in service. Point No.3 is decided accordingly.
12. Point No.4 & 5
As per point No.3, there is deficiency in service on the part of the staff of the opposite party and they are bound to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and financial loss suffered. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of E-Ticket reference No.OB7900559.
Ext.A2: Copy of Bus ticket No.271194.
Ext.A3: Copy of bus ticket No.612158.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: Attested copy of Way bill No.472206807 of Kottayam-Coimbatore Super fast authorizing Reg.M as driver and Jomon Thomas as Conductor.
Ext.B2: Attested print copy of Reservation chart Kottayam-Coimbator trip sheet No.428372 KTM trip code 0531 KTM CBE vehicle No.RPK 487-superfast.
Ext.B3: Attested copy of failure status of transaction-vehicle No.RPK 487- OB reference No.OB7900559-Aju Sherry.
Ext.B4: Attested copy of details of payment gateway-failure category transaction not authorized, failure reason PBE10002-Decline at Bank/Hosts-card holder’s name A.Kuriakode.Ref.No.OB7900559.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1: Dr.Asha Marina Kuriakose, the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1: Mohammed Abdul Nazar, District Officer, KSRTC, Palakkad.
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
