order dated 19-12-2008<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant briefly stated is as follows;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complainant being the president of Recreation Club of Government Employee, Kushalnagar took the bus of OP on contract basis for the purpose of tour from 19-4-2008 at 9 p.m till 24-4-2008 at 24 hours by paying the advance of Rs.54,000/- bearing receipt of 45507 dated 9-4-2007 and also a sum of Rs.4,242 /- in receipt no.47206 to the opposite party by entering in to a contract. The tour particulars is as follows;<br /> <br /> N®ä.š®0. y®ä®u® ®w®vw¯0N®v0u® y®lµu® ‹°m0S N®äﱛu® u®²Š® †hÔ š®Ú¡® šµ°‹u® š®Ú¡® vw¯0N® î®±q®±Ù š®î®±‡®±<br /> 1 19-4-2008 Š¯rä 9-00 S®0gµ 036890037400 510 O.ï±° î®±mNµ°‹ y®¡®x 20-4-08Š¯rä 7 S®0gµ<br /> 2 21-4-2008„µ¢SµÌ 9-00 037400037760 360 O.ï±° y®¡®x N®w¯ãN®±î®¾¯‹ 21-4-08Š¯rä 10 S®0gµ<br /> 3 22-4-2008„µ¢SµÌ 10-00 037760038140 380 O.ï±° N®w¯ãN®±î®¾¯‹ Š¯îµ±°ý®æŠ®0 24-4-08Š¯rä 11 S®0gµ<br /> 4 23-4-08„µ¢SµÌ 11-00 038140038521 315 O.ï±° Š¯îµ±°ý®æŠ®0 îµ°Œ¯0S®x 24-4-08Š¯rä 12 S®0gµ<br /> 5 24-4-08„µ¢SµÌ 10-00 038521038836 315 O.ï±° îµ°Œ¯0S®x N®Š®²Š®± 24-4-08Š¯rä 7-30 S®0gµ<br /> 6 24-4-08Š¯rä 10-30 038836039161 325 O.ï±° N®Š®²Š®± î®±mNµ°‹ 25-4-08„µ¢SµÌ 9-00 S®0gµ<br /> 2271 O.ï±° <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. As per the above statement the complainant and other employees toured the various places in six days and the bus plied to the extent of 2571 kilo meters and the rate agreed is Rs.22/- per kilo meter which comes to Rs.49.962/- + driver’s bata at Rs.100/- per day, for six days Rs.600/- and in total the complainant is liable to pay Rs.50,562/- only and the amount paid to the opposite party is Rs.58,252/- and as per the kilo meters run the complainant is liable to pay only Rs.50,562/- if the same is deducted from 58,252/- the opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.7,692/- to the complainant and the same amount should have been refunded to the complainant recreation club, but to the surprise of the complainant, the Depot Manager, KSRTC Madiker Depot, Madikeri has only refunded Rs.480/- only, without furnishing the details of journey and in this behalf a letter was addressed to the Depot Manager, Madikeri Depot calling upon him to furnish the particulars on which he has arrived at the figure, but the required particulars were not furnished.<br /> <br /> 3. That the opposite party is bound to refund a sum of Rs.7,690/-, despite several request made, the opposite party has not refunded a sum of Rs.7,690/- to the complainant’s Government Employees Recreation Centre and the complainant and the Secretary of the Centre has visited four times to Madikeri Depot and insisted for refunding the balance amount, but the opposite party has failed to do so which according to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and a direction is sought to the opposite party to refund the said amount, the complainant has enclosed the following documents as listed in the memo dated 13-10-2008.<br /> <br /> 1. Receipt for having paid Rs.54,000/- as advance to the opposite party.<br /> 2. The letter dated 19-5-2008 demanding the opposite party to refund the balance amount.<br /> 3. A letter dated 20-05-2008 informing the complainant to pay extra amount of Rs.6,600/- for having handing over the bus by 12 hours delay.<br /> 4. A letter dated 30-5-2008 written by the opposite party seeking clarification from Divisional Controller of KSRTC Mangalore. <br /> 5. A letter dated 20-6-2008 written by the opposite party informing the complainant’s Recreation Centre to collect Rs.480/-.<br /> 6. A letter written by the Secretary of the Recreation Centre seeking clarification from the opposite party as to the basis on which the calculation is made.<br /> 7. A letter dated 27-7-2008 seeking the basis on which the fine amount is imposed. <br /> <br /> 4. Upon admitting the complaint notice was ordered to be sent to the opposite party. The opposite party on receipt of the notice from this Forum has appeared through his advocate and has filed version and also the affidavit and also the documents mentioned below. <br /> <br /> 1. Xerox copy of the account statement.<br /> 2. Copy of the log sheet dated 19-4-2008.<br /> 3. Form KMV-48.<br /> 4. List of address of the passengers.<br /> 5. Copy of the programme of casual contract <br /> 6. Copy of the application for hiring of the KSRTC bus.<br /> 7. Copy of the clarification letter dated 8-5-2008 sent to Divisional controller of KSRTC, Mangalore.<br /> 8. Copy of the letter sent to Sri. H.N. Jagadisha dated 20-5-2008 issued by the D.C. Mangalore.<br /> 9. Copy of the letter issued to H.N. Jagadish dated 12-7-2008.<br /> 10. Copy of the General standing order dated 6-4-2004 bearing No.542/04,<br /> 11. Copy of the General standing order No.507/02<br /> 12. Copy of the revised rates of contract dated 2-4-2007 issued under order No.589/2007.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite party has taken following contention and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 1. That one Mr. Jagadesh, Secretary Recreation Club of Government Employees Kushalnagar has booked the KSRTC Bus on contract basis for the purpose of tour from 19-4-2008 at 9 p.m till 20-4-2008 at 24 hours and paid Rs.54,000/- as advance on 9-4-2008 and the complainant who has filed this complaint is in no way concerned to the transaction and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 2. That as per the said contract the opposite party deputed one Mr. Amirjan the driver of KSRTC to go on trip in the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-19F-2526. The Recreation Club of Government Employees of Kushalnagar started their journey on 19-4-2008 at 9 p.m and returned to Madikeri on 25-4-2008 at 9.20 a.m. and returned the bus to the Depot of the Opposite party and therefore, the bus reached the Depot by 9 hours 20 minutes delay.<br /> <br /> 3. That the general standing order no.542/2004 issued by the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Offices, Bangalore, provides for collection of extra amount for delay in handing over the bus to the depot. The said standing order is produced by the opposite party, the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder.<br /> <br /> “Delayed arrival: The rate for casual contracts for the delayed period shall be charged as follows;<br /> Note: Delay has to be reckoned from the time of completing last day.<br /> i) For delay of each hour or part their of up to a maximum of 5 hours : the rate shall be charged on hourly basis, instead of charging for one full day <br /> ii) For delay of morethan 5 hours charge shall be equivalent of one day minimum charge. <br /> <br /> 4. That the above general standing order reveal that the minimum charge for 300 kilometer is to be calculated at the rate of Rs.22/- per kilometer and accordingly the opposite party has charged a sum of Rs.6,600/- for the delay of morethan 5 hours as one day minimum charge.<br /> <br /> 5. That the opposite party has issued a detailed bill for the total 2571 kilometer including the said 300 kilometer at the rate of Rs.22/- per kilometer. The Secretary of Recreation Centre has paid a total sum of Rs.58,252/- (Fifty eight thousand, two hundred and fifty two only) to the opposite party. That the total journey fair is Rs.57,762/- as per the bill dated 26-4-2008 which is produced before the Forum, hence the opposite party is only liable to pay Rs.480/- to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party is ready to pay the said amount to the customer, but the Secretary of the Recreation Centre has refused to receive the said sum on 26-4-2008. Thereafter the opposite party sent the prepared bill to the Divisional Controller KSRTC Mangalore on 8-5-2008 for clarification and for confirmation. That the D.C. has verified the bill prepared by the opposite party and sent a letter to said H.N. Jagadesh, Secretary Recreation Centre, Kushalnagar informing that the bill prepared is fair and proper and asking him to pay one day minimum charge of Rs.6,600/-, despite it the Secretary Government Employees Recreation Centre Kushalnagar has not responded. Thereafter the opposite party sent the DD for a sum of Rs.480/- to the Secretary, which was acknowledged by him on 3-11-2008.<br /> <br /> 6. That the said bus could not ply in the regular route due to delay of morethan 9 hours in handing over it to the custody of the opposite party which has resulted in incurring huge loss. <br /> <br /> 7. That the opposite party is a Public Transport Corporation which is supposed to provide better transport facility to the public at large and any loss incurred would be fallen on public, therefore the opposite party in the interest of public has issued general standing order to protect the interest of KSRTC in particular and public in general.<br /> <br /> 8. That the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service on its part as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 6. Having regard to the averments made in the complaint and the defence taken by the opposite party the following issues arise for determination.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim made by the complainant?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order ?<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. There is no dispute with regard to the amount paid in advance and the actual journey undertaken by the complainant Recreation Centre and the delay in handing over the bus to the custody of the opposite party. According to both the parties the complainant has made use the bus by plying 2571 kilo meters from 19-4-2008 9 p.m. till 25-4-2008 at 9 a.m. though the complainant had undertaken to handover the bus on 24-4-2008 at 9 p.m., but has failed to do so. The bus is delivered on 25-4-2008 at 9 a.m. which is also not in dispute but, the dispute is only with regard to the collection of additional amount of Rs.6,600/- for the delay of morethan 5 hours in returning the bus to the custody of the opposite party. The opposite party has collected minimum charge for 300 kilometers at the rate of Rs.22/- per kilometer as per the latest general standing order no.542/2004 dated 6-4-2004 the relevant portion of the same has already been reproduced in the earlier paragraph which is binding on all the parties who enter in to contract with the opposite party. It is made clear in the statements of accounts of special buses hired on casual contract which bill is numbered as 18, wherein the details of journey performed, journey started on, journey completed on, total kilometers run, chargeable kilometers etc., etc., which has already been sent to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 8. In the application form for hiring of buses on casual contract, submitted by the complainant Recreation Centre, it is made clear that they are supposed to return the bus on 24-4-2008 which is signed by the Secretary of the said Centre. Therefore, for the delay beyond 5 hours the calculation made by the opposite party as per the general standing order no.542/2004 and charge is calculated for one day, and in accordance with the same the opposite party has calculated and prepared the bill which is not agreed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. The opposite party has made an attempt to seek clarification from Divisional Controller about the accuracy or otherwise of the calculation. The Divisional Controller, Mangalore on perusal of the several general standing orders in general and the general standing order number 542/2004 dated 6-4-2004 in particular has confirmed the calculation made by the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.480/- only but not as claimed by him to the extent of Rs.7,690/- in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 10. The illegality or otherwise of the general standing order cannot be decided by the Forum, as this Forum has got limited scope and the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to question the validity of the general standing order basing on which the calculation is made by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 11. It is made clear that all the general standing orders issued by the opposite party and,the instructions of higher authorities is binding on the persons and the institutes, who take the bus for casual contract and now at this stage the complainant cannot take a plea that such order is not binding on them and the calculation made by the opposite party is not proper. Therefore looking from any angle the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service, because calculation is made in consonance with the latest general standing order hence we have no other option except to answer point no.1 negatively. <br /> <br /> 12. Having regard to the above discussion and findings, thereon we proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. The parties to bear their own cost.<br /> Communicate the order to the parties. <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 19th day of December 2008).<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA),<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />