CC Filed on 07.03.2011

         Disposed on 09.12.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.

Dated: 09^th  day of December 2011

PRESENT:

                        HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH,  President.

  HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA,  Member.

       HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA,  Member.

---

Consumer Complaint No. 56/2011

Between:

ORDER

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of Rs.2,300/- received by the Opposite Party in excess and compensation of Rs.10,000/- against the Opposite Party  along with interest at 24% on the total amount.  

2. The complainant being resident of Seesandra Village situated on National Highway 4 commuter regularly to Kolar Taluk Office where he sells application forms for his livelihood and he travels by K.S.R.T.C bus regularly.   The complainant alleges that his village Seesandra is situated between Vadagur i.e first stage and Dairy i.e. second sub-stage.  For the year 2008-09 Opposite Party had fixed the bus fare for this distance at Rs.7/-, however the Opposite Party Conductor having printed the tickets as Thambahalli second stage have charged Rs.8/-.   The complainant explained to his friend about this and letter was written to the Opposite Party on 24.10.2009, but the Opposite Party have not responded.    Similarly in 2009-10 the same attitude continued and after raise of ticket fare or bus fare, the Conductors have been charging Rs.9/- for same distance.   The complainant wrote two more letters to the Opposite Party seeking direction that only Rs.7/- has to be charged, but Opposite Party has not responded, inspite of oral requests also.    The complainant through his Advocate invoked Right to Information and got copy of stage wise travel rates (general services) details.   

3. After filing of the above complaint notice was served on the Opposite Party and Opposite Party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that the complaint is barred by time and complainant being not a ‘consumer’ he did attract sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and it has not charged any excess amount from the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  

4. The complainant reiterated complaint averments in his affidavit.     Similarly the Opposite Party also filed affidavit reiterating the contents of version.   

5. From the complaint averments, version, affidavits filed by the parties and documents filed by the complainant the following points arise for consideration:

Point No.1: Whether there is relationship of ‘consumer’

                        and ‘service provider’ between complainant

and Opposite Parties?

 Point No.2:   Whether the complainant has proved the alleged

                       deficiency in service by the OP?

Point No.3:  To what order?

            6.  Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

1.      Affirmative

2.      Affirmative

3.      As per final order.

R E A S O N S

7. POINT NO. 1:     The complainant has produced nearly 100 bus tickets to prove that he is passenger commuting by K.S.R.T.C (OP bus) from 2008-09 to 2010-11.   Opposite Party being public transport, the complainant is availing of the service provided by Opposite Party, thereby complainant is ‘consumer’ under Opposite Party.   

8. POINT NO 2:  It is the allegation of the complainant that he was traveling from Seesandra and that village is situated in between Vadagur which is the first stage and the Dairy which is the second sub-stage.    The Opposite Party has not denied this averment in the counter statement.     Hence situation of Seesandra Village in between stage one and second sub-stage is not in dispute.    The complainant has produced the order copy of the Opposite Party fixing the price and it shows the price for traveling from Kolar to Dairy i.e. second sub-stage as Rs.7/- at particular a point of time.   It is stated by the complainant that it was Rs.7/- during he year 2008-09 and subsequently it was increased to Rs.9/-.   The complainant has not produced the copy of the order which shows Rs.9/-.    However the factual averments made by the complainant about the price fixed between the said two stages is not disputed by the Opposite Party, in his counter statement.       Hence it is taken as admitted.       One of the order copy fixing the bus fare from Kolar to Dairy second sub-stage clearly goes to show that it was Rs.7/- and subsequently it has been raised to Rs.9/-.   It is the contention of the complainant that even though it was fixed at Rs.7/- and then at Rs.9/-,  the conductor of the Opposite Party have charged more and they have collected Rs.1/- more in the beginning and Rs.2/- more later.    In this way there was some excess collection by the Conductors of Opposite Party.      The complainant has also produced certain tickets which shows that at some time, the fare was collected at Rs.7/- and some time it was collected excess at Rs.8/- or Rs.9/-.    Hence we are of the opinion that the ticket charge collected by the Conductors is in excess of the fare that was actually fixed by the Opposite Party.    The Opposite Party is a Government Institution which is run for the welfare of the public.    The fixing of the bus fare cannot challenged, but once the bus fare is fixed by the Opposite Party, the staff of Opposite Party has to follow the same and collect the bus fare as fixed by the Opposite Party.    Hence if any excess amount is collected more than the fixed bus fare, it amounts to deficiency in service.   Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved that there was excess collection of the bus fare by the Conductors of the Opposite Party, hence it amounts to deficiency in service.  

9. POINT NO.3:  The complainant has claimed for Rs.2,300/- which was paid by him as excess charges.   In our opinion it is not practicable to fix how much amount has been collected as excess charge, because according to the complainant, Opposite Party had some time taken correct fare and some time they have charged extra.      The complainant may or may not have traveled all the days as alleged.     Hence instead of fixing the exact amount which could have been collected as extra bus fare, some notional amount for this deficiency in service, may be allowed.   That amount will also include the excess amount charged and also nominal compensation for the deficiency that may be caused.    Hence we are of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- is proper, both for the amount collected in excess of the bus fare, and as compensation.    In addition to it costs of Rs.3,000/- may be awarded.   Hence we pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed.    The Opposite Party shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.    The Opposite Party is granted 30 days time to comply this order.

            Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 09^th  day of December 2011.

T. NAGARAJA                        K.G.SHANTALA           T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH  

   MEMBER                                    MEMBER                           PRESIDENT