Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite parties to pass an award to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain, suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant purchased two tickets through on line at Guntur on 03-11-2011 for Bus Service No:8759 (Tirupathi to Bhadrachalam; Bhadrachalam Depot); boarding at Vijayawada one was CAT Card ticket and one General ticket.  The agent charged RS.295/- for both tickets ( i.e. Cat Card ticket Rs.140/- and general ticket Rs.155/-).

3.     The complainant purchased four tickets on 05-11-2011 for return journey though on line at Bhadrachalam; from Bhandrachalam to Vijayawada for service No.8758 (Bhadrachalam to Tirupathi; Bhadrachalam Depot).  Out of four tickets one is cat card ticket and remaining tickets are general tickets.  Surprisingly the Agent charged Rs.613/-( i.e. cat card ticket charged as Rs.142/- and general ticket charged 157/-).  The complainant asked the said agent for the difference of Rs.2/- for each ticket; he said as per the instructions of the APSRTC only we charged the charges; and adviced to enquire the Depot Manager. 

4.     The complainant issued a notice to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and requested them to clarify the difference supra mentioned ticket charges.  The 3^rd opposite party got issued reply to the said notice with an evasive reply. 

5.     Due to the attitude and behaviour of the opposite parties, the complainant as well as most of travelers suffered a lot mentally and financially and which clearly falls under the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice under the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant towards damages and mental agony. 

6.      The following is the version of  2^nd opposite party in brief :

          The complainant has booked two(2)tickets through online at

Guntur on 03-11-2011 to go to Bhadrachalam, from Vijayawada to Bhadrachalam and he also booked four (4) tickets through on line for return journey from Bhdrachalam to Vijayawada.

7.     It is submitted that after receiving the legal notice from the complainant immediately the opposite parties taken adequate steps and enquired the matter regarding the fair anomalous between Bhadrachalam and Vijayawada and opposite parties notice that the fair anomalous was occurred due to the O.P.R.S.(Online Passenger Reservation System) problem only and it is not the fault of A.T.B. (Authorised Ticket Booking) agent and to avoid the above said fair anomalous between Bhadrachalam and Vijayawada steps have been taken, problem was rectified and now the fair are same for both up and down services i.e. Vijayawada to Bhadrachalam and Bhadrachalam to Vijayawada.

8.     The complainant and the opposite parties filed their respective affidavits.  Exbs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exbs.B-1 & B-2 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

9.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this

         complaint are:      

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

10.    POINT NO.1  :  The allegation of the complainant is that charging of Rs.2/- extra for tickets to travel from Bhadrachalam to Vijayawada was accepted and explained by the opposite parties to the Forum as it was O.P.R.S.(online passenger reservation system) problem but not the fault of ATB (authorized ticket booking). 

11.   The problem might be of O.P.R.S. or what ever, opposite parties wrongly collected Rs.2/- extra on each ticket from complainant which is nothing but negligence.

12.    These kind of problems should be identified instantaneously by the staff of the opposite parties and shall be rectified with immediate effect by the opposite parties. If no complaint was raised by the complainant, the problem would have persisted and the opposite parties be collecting as such. The said act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.  This point is answered in favour of complainant. 

13.    POINT NO.-2 :-  The complainant sought information through a letter to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties on 11-11-11 and it was received by them on 14-11-11.  On 18-11-2011 ED( Operations and MIS) ^rd opposite party’s office responded to the complainant by writing a letter that the complaint has been sent to Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam to submit a report on the fare anomalies between Bhadrachalam and Vijayawada and after receiving the report it will be informed to the complainant.  Later the 3rd opposite party received enquiry report dated 07-12-11 (Exb-B2) from 2^nd opposite party .But the 3^rd opposite party did not choose to inform the same to the complainant thereafter. The complainant after waiting for two months filed consumer case in the Forum i.e. on 06-02-12.

14.   The complainant though raised the issue on 11-11-11 the opposite parties did not respond till he filed Consumer Case in 06-02-2012. Such delay on the part of opposite parties can be harassment to the complainant. More particularly public utility services, should be alert in discharging their duties, since they are answerable to the people atlarge. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

15.   In the result, the complaint is allowed in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500(rupees five hundred only) to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency of service .

2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000(rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amounts awarded in item No. 1 shall carry interest @9% p.a., till the date of payment.   

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the, 21^st day of June, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: 

PRESIDENT