Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/41

Mohd Maqbool Ahmed S/o Mohd Maqdoom Hussain O/c Retd. Circle Inspector - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahabubnagar. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P. Rajendra Prasad

26 Sep 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday the 26th day of September, 2008    

 

                                                             Present:- Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

     Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

       Smt.B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

 

                                                                 C.C.NO. 41  Of   2008

 

Between:- 

Mohd. Moqbool Ahmed, S/o Mohd. Maqdoom Hussain, Aged: 60 years, Occ: Retd. Circle Inspector, R/o H.No.1-10-61/11/D1, Shashab Gutta,  Mahabubnagar.  

                                                                                              … Complainant.

And

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,

Mahabubnagar Depot.

                                                                                        … Opposite Party

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 18-09-2008, in the presence of Sri P. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri K. Venkat Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:  

O R D E R

(Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, Member)

 

1.     This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint towards compensation to the complainant and also pay  costs of the complaint. 

 

2.     The complaint averments are as follows:-   The complainant is resident of Mahabubnagar.  The complainant on 5.4.2008 has boarded in a Bus of opposite party bearing No.3834 “Super Luxury” at Mahabubnagar.  The complainant was “allotted Seat No.34” Ticket No.LV63292.  The complainant was going to Hyderabad to meet a real estate business person to purchase a plot at Shamshabad.  The said person has asked the complainant to approach him at 10:00 A.M. for settlement of sale consideration and for entering into agreement as several persons are asking him to sell said plot.  The said person has informed the complainant that if he fails to contact him at 10:00 A.M. he will deal with some other persons and sell the plot.  Accordingly, the complainant has boarded the 7’o clock morning bus for the above said purpose.   The bus started at 7:30 A.M. from Mahabubnagar Bus Stand. The condition of said bus was not good and major seats in the bus were in damaged condition.  However, the complainant has no other go except travelling in the said bus at that time.   Even during the travel, the complainant has observed that the bus was going very slow and the other buses like Ordinary and Express services etc., have over taken said bus, though they started more than half an hour late.  The complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony due to his appointment at 10:00 A.M. and from the condition of bus.  The bus reached at Kothur village by 9:40 A.M. and suddenly the driver of the bus has stopped the bus and informed the passengers that the bus is not in condition to move further and as such asked the passengers that he will request other buses and arrange to go to Hyderabad.  Accordingly, the bus driver has stopped two to three buses and sent all the passengers to Hyderabad and the said process has taken for about 45 minutes.  The complainant was sent in another R.T.C. Bus service No.1451 of Mahabubnagar Non Stop service bearing No.1288 and there were no seats available in said bus.  When the complainant asked the driver regarding the same, the driver has not even given any response to the complainant and moreover informed that he cannot do anything to the complainant.  Due to the urgency, the complainant has tolerated all the things and boarded said bus.  The said bus reached  Hyderabad at 11:30 A.M. when the complainant contacted the real estate business man, he informed that the complainant was asked to meet him by 10:30 A.M. and he failed to approach him, he has sold the plot to others.  Thus the complainant has suffered heavy loss and lost the opportunity of purchasing plot at Shamshabad.  The complainant has suffered said loss and mental agony due to the deficiency of service of opposite party.  There is deficiency in the service of opposite party towards the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon as compensation apart from the costs of the proceedings.  Hence the complaint. 

 

3.     The opposite party filed counter with the following averments:-  It is true that the subject bus started from Mahabubnagar Bus Stand at 7:20 hours to Hyderabad.  There was no clutch problem/complaint prior to that day i.e., 5.4.2008.  The condition of the said vehicle as on 5.4.2008 was very good.  All of sudden the clutch problem developed and the driver stopped the bus at Palmakul village at 10:30 hours.  It is a problem of unforeseen and occurred unexpectedly.  There was no failure on the part of the opposite party in performing its duties to the complainant.  Immediately after stopping the bus, the driver stopped another bus service No.1288 of Mahabubnagar depot and accommodated the complainant in the said service.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and the opposite party is not liable for payment of any compensation as such the compliant is liable to be dismissed.  

 

4.   The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A-1 on his behalf.
5.   The opposite party filed its affidavit and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6 on   its behalf.      
6.   The opposite party filed its written arguments.
7.   The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is  entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

8.    The opposite party admitted the case of the complainant that the complainant is a passenger of subject bus and it has given trouble due to clutch problem and failed at Palmakul village and the complainant was accommodated in another bus to reach the destination i.e., Hyderabad. 

 

9.   Firstly it has to be decided whether the opposite party rendered services in deficit or not?  The learned counsel for OP vehemently argued that the clutch problem is an unexpected and unforeseen problem.  It is also a general problem in the R.T.C. buses. However, the complainant was accommodated immediately in another bus and he reached the destination point safely.  The complainant has not undergone any sufferance.   Therefore there is no deficiency in services of OP.   Hence OP is not liable to pay anything.   The learned counsel for the complainant argued that OP has collected high fare for Super Luxury bus but it was not checked before leaving the depot by concerned technical staff and certified by the Foreman.   Further OP has not filed any document to show even as to the routine checking of the bus on the last occasion.  Hence the problem arisen and it was failed.   Thus it is a clear deficiency on the part of OP for not checking the bus and putting it on road and causing inconvenience to the passengers and forcing them to make remaining journey uncomfortably.                                                                                                           
10. The OP alleged that the failure of bus is for non function of clutch and further argued that it is quite frequent in all the buses.   If that is so, the technical staff should check the buses before leaving the depot itself after due certification of the Foreman with regard to the fitness of the concerned bus. In the instant case, OP has not filed any document to show that the bus was checked before leaving the depot by the concerned technical staff and certified by the Foreman to that effect.   In such an event it can be safely inferred that the subject bus was not even checked properly and put on the route.  It is not the case of OP that the bus failed due to latent defect.  There is also no record placed before the Forum as to the routine checking of the bus on the last occasion.   It clearly leads that in fact the bus was put on the line all along without any checkup.  Thus it is clearly established that the defective bus was put on the line by OP. 

      Now coming to the point of providing a ‘relief bus’ to the passengers, but however providing alternate bus to the stranded passengers shall not in any way be taken into consideration as relief to the passengers.  The incident itself will speak but for the recklessness of the persons of OP that they have not acted properly.  Therefore the fact remains that OP has failed to render proper services to the passengers though passenger is sent in the relief bus.  Sending the complainant in a relief bus by OP shall not absolve their liability to pay compensation for the inconvenience and the sufferance of the passengers concerned. 

       It is the bounden duty of R.T.C. to provide condition and road worthy buses.  Admittedly there will be a difference in fare.  The bus fare will depend upon the category of the bus viz., Ordinary, Express, Super Express, Luxury Deluxe etc.   The passenger prefers to pay more fare and desires to make journey in the Luxury and Hi-Tech buses with great expectation of comfortable and relaxable journey.  It is also the duty of the R.T.C. to maintain such standards and condition buses when they are charging high fares.  Not providing the condition bus inspite of collecting Super Luxury fares and causing inconvenience to the passengers and accommodating the passenger/complainant in other bus in which there are no seats to sit and forcing them to make standing journey like in an ordinary or city bus is nothing but deficiency of service.   Therefore we hold that OP rendered deficit services by not providing proper condition bus and causing inconvenient journey to the complainant.  Therefore OP is liable to pay compensation.           

11. The complainant is claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation claiming that he lost his opportunity of getting plot at Shamshabad and failed to meet the real estate business persons in time.   There is no material on record to appreciate the contention of the complainant in this regard.  The complainant has failed to establish that he sustained loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.  Though there is no monetary loss, the complainant who became a standing passenger sustained strain in journey due to negligent and deficit services of OP.  Therefore in our considered opinion Rs.200/- is the reasonable amount to award as compensation for all his stress and strains.  The acts of OP dragged the complainant to file the complaint by engaging advocate.    Therefore in our view the complainant is entitled for Rs.300/- towards costs of the proceedings.                                                                                                                
12. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.200/- as compensation and Rs.300/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Rest of the claims of the complainant are disallowed.    

   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of September, 2008.           

     

 MEMBER                                  MEMBER                            PRESIDENT 

 

Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                    For opposite party:  Nil

 

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-

Ex.A-1:        Original Bus Ticket, dt.5.4.2008.

Exhibits marked for OP:-

 

Ex.B-1:        Attested copy of bus ticket, dt.5.4.2008.

Ex.B-2:        Daily Log Sheet, dt.5.4.2008.

Ex.B-3:        Attested copy of Way Bill.

Ex.B-4:        Attested copy of Way Bill. 

Ex.B-5:        Statistical and Ticket Account.

Ex.B-6:        Position Report letter by OP.

 

By the Forum:

     - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri P. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri K. Venkat Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.