1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he executed an agreement with the Ops to operate Jeypore-Chandahandi bus service on charter for a period of one year and had deposited a sum of Rs.35, 700/- with OP.2 vide Receipt No.17, Book No.3916 dt.24.09.2008 as security amount.  It is submitted that after 4 months of agreement and deposit of SD amount, the Ops provided bus bearing No.OR-10A-6628 on 22.1.2009 which was not roadworthy due to oldness and defective and on the day one of its operation, the bus met with brake down resulted non operational.  In spite of repeated request of the complainant, the OP.1 did not allot a roadworthy bus in his favour and as such the agreement period was expired.  It is further submitted that the OP.1 forwarded the application of the complainant to OP.2 for release of SD amount but in spite of repeated approach, the OP.2 also did not release the same.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.35, 700/- towards SD amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.9.2008 and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint admitting allotment of route from Jeypore to Chandahandi on charter in favour of the complainant for one year as well as deposit of Rs.35, 700/- on 24.9.2008 towards security amount by the complainant.  It is contended that prayer of the complainant for replacement of vehicle with a good conditioned vehicle is not entertain able as per terms and conditions of agreement.  Regarding release of SD amount, the Ops submitted that since the complainant has already started operation of the vehicle as per agreement, he is not entitled for any relief.  However, considering the grievance of the complainant, they have released Rs.33, 872/- towards security amount after deducting Rs.1828/- as recovery as per NDC and as per terms of agreement, the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the said amount.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3,                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the allotment of Jeypore- Chandahandi route on charter in favour of the complainant by Ops and deposit of Rs.35, 700/- on 24.9.2008 by the complainant towards security amount is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that the OP.1 allotted Bus No.OR-10A-6628 on 22.1.2009 that is after 4 months of deposit of SD amount which was not roadworthy and on the day one of operation; the vehicle met brake down and could not be operated.  The fact was intimated to OP.1 with a request to replace the bus with a good one but the OP.1 did not listen till expiry of agreement.

5.                     Perused the copy of agreement filed by the Ops and found at Clause of said agreement that in case of any dispute regarding cancellation of agreement or difficulties faced by the agent, he shall file appeal before the CMD, OSRTC but neither any appeal is filed by the complainant nor his grievance has been passed to CMD by OP.1.  Further the complainant has filed application before the OP.2 for release of SD amount through OP.1 but the OP.2 remained silent.  However, after filing of this case, the Ops stated in their counter that a sum of Rs.33, 872/- has been released in favour of the complainant after deducting Rs.1828/- towards recovery.  The sanctioned amount does not bear any interest as per agreement at Clause-10.  Though the deduction of Rs.1828/- has been effected and rest of the amount has been released, the Ops failed to return any amount to the complainant till filing of this case.

6.                     It is further seen that the Ops did not utter a single word about the condition of their bus and due to brake down how many days were taken to repair the bus since a major defect.  It is a settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms of agreement.  No correspondence has been made by the OP.1 to the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle after due repair.  Without taking any action in the matter and on the grievance of the complainant, the Ops are only grumbling about the terms and conditions.  It was the duty of the Ops, to allot a roadworthy bus or make it fit within a reasonable period but the Ops did not do so.  The date of sanction of Rs.33, 872/- has not been intimated by the Ops with reason of non return of the same to the complainant.

7.                     From the above facts and circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the released amount of Rs.33, 872/- as per Clause-10 of the agreement and he is only entitled for Rs.33, 872/-.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not entitled to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant but he is certainly entitled for cost of this litigation at Rs.500/- due to such inaction of the Ops.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.33, 872/- only towards security amount and to pay Rs.500/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the security amount as stated above shall bear interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

(to dict.)