Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/282/2012

Terapalli Satya Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Depot Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Terapalli Satya Rao

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:07-09.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:13-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                            Tuesday, the 13^th day of January, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.282/2012

Between:-

Terapalli Satya Rao, S/o Nookalu, aged

45 years, practicing Advocate, residing at

Door No.71-31-1055, Chintalalova,

Gandhigram Post, Visakhapatnam-530 005.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh Road

   Transport Corporation, Visakhapatnam Bus Depot,

   Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

2.The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh Road

   Transport Corporation, Regional Office,

   Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

3.The Chairman and Managing Director,

   Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation,

   Musheerabad, Golkonda Cross Roads,

   Hyderabad.

                                                                                      …  Opposite Parties      

                     

          This case coming on 12.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri T. Satya Rao (Inperson) of the Complainant and Sri Ujjaneni Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing them to pay Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten thousand and five hundred only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs.

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that he is practicing as an Advocate since 1994 for the purpose of attending Mega Lok Adalat on 17.03.2012 for settling the matter in C.C.91/2010 while going to Narsipatnam at about 10:15 a.m.  believing the words of the Opposite Parties that the bus will be reached to Narsipatnam at about 10:15 a.m.  The Complainant purchased the bus ticket by paying Rs.110/- at Gajuwaka and boarded the bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 2381 and while the said bus was crossed Makavarapalem, the bus was stopped due to airlocking.   But the officials of the Opposite Parties have not provided alternative way to reach Narsipatnam, then he was constrained to take his own transport by spending Rs.500/- and he reached the Lok Adalat at about 12:00 p.m. and in the meanwhile the matter was called and as a result, it could not be settled in the Mega Lok Adalat and parties rejected to pay the fee of Rs.10,000/- payable to him and on that he got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties to pay a compensation due to deficiency of service dated by them and the same was acknowledged, but no reply was received.  Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The case of the Opposite Parties denying the material averments of the Petition is that there is no trustworthy in the allegations of the Complainant and contended that the statement of the driver of the bus discloses this bus was stopped 4 kms. before Narsipatnam and all the passengers i.e., 16 in Number and within 10 minutes they made alternative arrangements to reach Narsipatnam and there is no inconvenience to anybody.   Their act is not intentional but it was done purely beyond their control however, no loss had been caused to anybody, as such, there was no deficiency of service dated by them.   It is also their case on enquiry it was found that the Complainant never travelled for the said bus.   For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

4.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant he filed his sworn evidence affidavit and got marked as Exs.A1 to A5.     On the other hand,  on behalf of the Opposite Parties their Law Officer filed their evidence affidavit and got marked as Ex. Ex.B1.

 

5.       Ex.A1 is the Bus Ticket dated 17.03.2010.   Ex.A2 is the office copy of Registered letter addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties dated 19.03.2012.   Ex.A3 is the office copy of letter addressed by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 28.03.2012.   Ex.A4 is the 3 (three) Postal Receipts with Acknowledgement Card dated 20.03.2012.   Ex.A5 is the photo copy Proceedings of A.P. State Legal Service Authority dated 24.02.2012.

          Ex.B1 is the Driver Report dated 29.09.2012.

 

6.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  

 

7.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

 

8.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for:

 

9.       As seen from record, it is not in dispute on 17.03.2012 baring No. AP 28 Z 2381 Indra AC Bus while proceedings from Gajuwaka to Narsipatnam, the Bus was stopped 4 Kms. before Narsipatnam due to airlocking.   According to the Complainant, he is one of the ticket holder proceeding in the bus going to Narsipatnam.    To prove the same, he relied upon Ex.A1, the bus ticket stated to have been issued by APSRTC, Gajuwaka Depot.   On a careful perusal of the Ex.A1 it is evident that the Complainant has proved that he was travelling in the said bus along with other passengers togo to Narsipatnam.   Though the Opposite Parties are contending that the Complainant never travel in the bus in view of Ex.A1 coupled with the evidence of the Complainant and Ex.A2,  we are of the considered view that the Complainant has proved his contention that he is one of the passengers travelling in the aforesaid bus to go to Narsipatnam  on 17.03.2012.

 

10.     It is in the evidence of the Complainant as the Opposite Parties have not provided any alternative to reach Narsipatnam to attend Mega Lok Adalat vide E.A5 he constrained to take his own transport by spending of Rs.500/- and inspite of reaching he could not able to attend in time to settle his case before the Lok Adalat as a result, his client refused to pay his fee.   As seen from the evidence of the Complainant, it is clear that on his own transport he reached Narsipatnam.    It is the duty of the Opposite Party to look after the working condition of the bus properly before the bus starts.    Further the Opposite Party failed to provide alternative arrangement to the Complainant immediately to reach Narsipatnam to attend before Lok Adalat.     The contention of the Opposite Parties is that they have provided alternative arrangements to the passengers are not substantiated with relevant proof by cause production of the relevant SR etc.    As seen from Ex.A5 and evidence of the Complainant it appears the complainant failed to reach Narsipatnam to attend before Lok Adalat which definitely cause not only loss to his client, but also to Advocate as he was all the way engaged from Visakhapatnam when the bus was stopped due to airlocking the Opposite Parties has to take immediate steps to safeguards the interests of passenger much less the Complainant in order to reach them to their respective destinations, but the Opposite Parties failed to place any proof in this regard.  Perusal of the record we are of the considered view that the acts committed by the Opposite Parties clearly come under the definition of deficiency of service.

For these reasons the claim of the Complaint is deserves to be allowed.

 

11.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,500/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence affidavit of the Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award and compensation of 5,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.5,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

 

12.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not to have to approach this Forum had the Opposite Parties reached the destination of the Complainant within a reasonable time and in view of the matter the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

13.     In the result, the Complainant is allowed in part directing the Opposite Parties  a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand  only) and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 13^th day of January, 2015.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                     President

                            

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	17.-03.2012	Bus Ticket	Original
Ex.A02	19.03.2013	Registered letter addressed by the Complainant to 1st OP	Office copy
Ex.A03	28.03.2012	Letter addressed by the 1st OP to Complainant.	Office copy
Ex.A04	20.03.2012	3 (three) Postal Receipts with Acknowledgement card	Original
Ex.A05	24.02.2012	Proceedings of A.P. State Legal Service Authority.	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-     

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	29.09.2012	Report of Driver	Original

 

     Sd/-                                Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                      President