Date of Filing ::19-05-2012
Date of Disposal ::13-08-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Thursday, this the 13th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.33/2012
Dr. G. V. Subba Rao,
son of Venkataswamy,
aged 59 years,
Hindu,
Medical Officer,
R.I.M.S., Hospital,
Ongole, Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
1) The Regional Manager,
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
R.T.C. Depot,
Ongole, Prakasam District.
2) The Depot Manager,
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
Ongole, Prakasam District. … Opposite Parties
This complaint under section-12 of consumer protection Act, 1986, coming on 03-08-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Ramaiah, advocate for complainant and Sri S. Raghunadha Reddy, advocate for first opposite party and the second opposite party did not contest the matter, and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant booked a ticket with the opposite party to go to Kadapa on 17-12-2011 in bus service no.6056, seat no.11. The bus was scheduled to depart at 22:45 hours from Ongole. The complainant came to bus stand at 10:15 P.M. on that day. The bus service no.6056 came to the bus stand at 11:30 PM on that day. When the complainant approached the conductor, the conductor informed him that the reservation is not for that bus. The bust left the depot. When the complainant approached the controller, he informed that the bus might have reached the Ongole depot. The complainant waited till 1:30 A.M. and went back without making the journey. He made a written complaint to the controller at 1:30 A.M., but no action was taken. The complainant could not travel in the bus due to the attitude of the opposite parties. The opposite parties committed a deficiency of service. The complainant got issued a legal notice. Hence, the complaint for refund of fare with costs and damages.
2. The brief averments of the counter of first opposite party are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. The complainant booked a ticket for journey on 17-12-2011 in the service no.6056 with seat no.11. The bus reached Ongole at 10:45 Pm. All the reserved passengers boarded the bus and the bus left at 11:15 PM. During that period the complainant has not come and enquired the driver. Had the complainant come during that time, he might have boarded the bus. The complainant has not approached the station manager. Hence, he could not board another bus. The driver of the bus allowed all the passengers after verification. The complainant has not arrived in time. The other allegations are false. There is no deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The second opposite party did not contest the matter.
4. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
5. The complainant filed his chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the first opposite party the regional manager filed his affidavit. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
6. POINT:- The complainant could not travel on 17-12-2011, though he booked a ticket to that place in a bus of the opposite parties (APSRTC). The complainant alleged that the conductor of the bus gave wrong information and as such, he could not board the bus. He alleged further that the controller also could not help him in this regard. The opposite party contended that the complainant might have reached the bus stand after the departure time and as such, he could not travel. The opposite party denied all the allegations and contended that there was no deficiency of service and the complainant has to blame himself for coming late to the bus stand. A contention was raised that the bus in which the complainant was to travel, belonged to Kadapa depot and that the claim is not maintainable on that ground. A depot is branch of the organization called APSRTC. As such, the non-impleading of the depot to which the bus was allotted, will not render the claim invalid. The claim is maintainable.
7. The reservation of the complainant is admitted. Ex.A2 is the copy of the written complaint made by the complainant to the depot manager, APSTRC, Ongole. There is no reply to the legal notice under Ex.A3. The complainant made the same allegations in Ex.A3. There is no material to show that the complainant came late to the bus stand on that day as alleged by the opposite parties. Normally the passenger who did not board the bus will be contacted on phone. However, the same does not appear to have been done in this case. The opposite party should have contacted the complainant on phone. The affidavit of the conductor of the bus to the contra was not filed by the opposite party. The affidavit of the said conductor denying the allegations of the complaint, need to be filed under the circumstances of the case. In the absence of the same, the averments of the complainant cannot be disbelieved. The organization of APSTRC is liable to the mistake of its employee. Hence, the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in this regard. The complainant is entitled to refund of the fare of Rs.223/- with interest at 9% P.a., from the date of complaint till realization along with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the circumstances of the case, we are of the view the damages are not necessary. The point is held accordingly.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed, ordering the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.223/- (rupees two hundred and twenty three only) with interest at 9% P.a., from the date of complaint till realization, to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only). The claim for the rest is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 13th day of August, 2015.
Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 06-12-2012 Dr. G. V. Subba Rao, son of Venkataswamy, aged 59
years, Hindu, Medical Officer, R.I.M.S., Hospital,Ongole, Prakasam District.
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
R.W.1 26-10-2012 G. Maheswar, son of Srinivasula Naidu, aged 51 years,
Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 12-12-2011 Ticket No.63255777 issued by opposite parties.
Ex.A2 Photostat copy of written complaint.
Ex.A3 20-01-2012 Office copy of legal notice to the opposite parties.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgment and two postal receipts.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTIES:
-No-
Sd/-xxxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The first opposite party.
3) The second opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//free copy//
