The Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. V/S Sri. P.R. Patil @ Pampannagouda S/o Ramanagouda, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 96/07

Sri. P.R. Patil @ Pampannagouda S/o Ramanagouda, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. - Opp.Party(s)

Adangoud S Patil

22 Feb 2008

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 96/07

Sri. P.R. Patil @ Pampannagouda S/o Ramanagouda,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant P.R. Patil @ Pampanagouda against Respondent-Divisional Controller NEKRTC Divisional Office Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- On 22-09-07 the complainant was coming from Neermanvi to Raichur in the Respondent Bus- Koppal to Raichur bearing No. KA-36/F-457. The complainant was having monthly Bus Pass bearing NE/A-003692 which was valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07. But the Respondent employee/conductor bearing Batch No. 2220 did not accept the said Pass by stating that this is not an ordinary Bus it is Rajahamsa Bus and the Pass is not valid for that Bus. When the complainant was ready to pay the bus fare for that the said conductor has given Ordinary Bus Fare Ticket for Rs. 25/- bearing No. 00004100 dt. 22-09-07. According to him when the complainant was having valid Bus Pass the Respondent employee has not accepted the same and when he was ready to pay Rajahamsa Bus Fare, the conductor instead of issuing Rajahamsa Bus Fare has issued ordinary Bus Fair Ticket. The complainant being a reputed and prestigious person and due to the above said acts of the Conductor/Respondent employee he suffered mentally for not accepting his Bus Pass for Rajahamsa Bus and valid Fare Ticket and due to rude behavior his image was lowered in the presence of public and was shamed. The acts and attitude of the Respondent employee amounts to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental agony and damage to his image. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction for returning the Bus Fare of Rs. 25/- to the complainant and for awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment for rude behavior of the Respondent employee and for mental harassment along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. In-response to service of notice of the complaint issued by this Forum the Respondent remained absent on 16-01-08 when called out so he has been placed Ex-parte. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of his complaint. He has also produced (4) documents marked at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for complainant perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he was having monthly Bus Pass bearing No. NE/A-003692 valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07. It is also his case that on 23-09-07 he was coming from Neermanvi to Raichur in the Respondent Bus (Koppal-Raichur) bearing No. KA 36/F-457 and the Respondents employee/conductor No. 2220 did not accept his Pass by stating that the Bus is not ordinary and it is Rajahamsa Bus and that the Bus Pass is not valid. When he was ready to pay the Rajahamsa Bus Fare for that the said conductor has given ordinary Bus Fare Ticket of Rs. 25/- bearing No. 00004100 dt. 22-09-07. According to him when he was having valid bus Pass the same was not accepted by the conductor and when he was ready to pay Rajahamsa Bus Fare the Respondent employee issued ordinary Bus Fare Ticket instead of Rajahamsa Bus Fare Ticket. 7. The complainant has produced (4) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Ex.P-1 is the Bus Pass bearing No. NE/A003692 valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07 with his identification No. 014474. A perusal of which it shows that this Bus Pass has been issued for traveling in Ordinary, Express and Non-stop Bus. It also shows the signature of the issuing Authority of the Respondent. Ex.P-2 is the Bus-Ticket dt. 22-09-07 for Rs. 25/- issued by Respondent Corporation. Ex.P-3 is the copy of Legal Notice dt. 04-10-07 issued by the complainants Advocate to the Respondent through RPAD. Ex.P-4 is the Postal Acknowledgement of the service of same showing date seal of the Post Office as 05-10-07. In the Legal Notice Ex.P-3 dt. 04-10-07 the complainant has narrated in detail that on 22-09-07 the complainant was coming from Neermanvi to Raichur in the Koppal-Raichur Bus bearing NO. KA-36/F-457 and that when he showed his monthly Bus Pass NE/A-003692 valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07 the Respondents employee/conductor bearing batch No. 2220 not accepted the same by stating that the Bus is not ordinary Bus and it is Rajahamsa Bus. It is further stated that when the complainant was having valid Bus Pass the same was not accepted and when he was ready to pay the Bus Fare of Rajahamsa Bus the conductor has issued ordinary Bus Fare Ticket of Rs. 25/-. So his image was lowered in the public and was ashamed and rude behavior of the conductor amounts to deficiency in service of Respondent for which he suffered mental agony and thereby the Respondent was called upon to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with cost of legal notice and charges within (15) days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which the complainant would be constrained to take appropriate legal action in the competent court of law. The Xerox copy of the Bus Pass and Xerox copy of Bus Ticket issued by the conductor were enclosed to the said notice. 8. The legal notice issued by counsel for complainant has been served on the Respondent-Divisional controller NEKRTC Divisional Office Raichur vide Postal Acknowledgement at Ex.P-4 which bears date, seal of the Post Office as on 05-10-07. The Respondent has not appeared before this Forum in-spite of service of notice issued by this Forum vide postal acknowledgement and so he has been placed Ex-parte. Therefore the conduct of the Respondent in not replying either to the legal notice at Ex.P-3 in-spite of the service vide postal acknowledgement vide Ex.P-4 and having not appeared before this Forum in-spite of service of notice issued by this Forum vide postal acknowledgement, amply shows that he has no defence to rebut the case of the complainant. If really the Bus pass issued to the complainant was an ordinary Bus Pass and if really the conductor has issued Rajahamsa Bus Fare Ticket from Neermanvi to Raichur, then what prevented the Respondent from replying to the legal notice of the complainant. It would be more so when the legal notice Ex.P-3 shows enclosure of Xerox copy of Bus Pass vide Ex.P-1 and Xerox copy of Rajahamsa Bus Fare Ticket vide Ex.P-2. The attitude of the Respondent in not replying to the legal notice and not contesting the complaint before this Forum in-spite of service of notice, itself shows that Respondent has no defence to rebut the case of the complainant and thus it further shows deficiency in service by the Respondent as alleged by the complainant. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the Respondent-Divisional Controller NEKRTC Raichur. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 9. The complainant has sought for refund of Bus Fare of Rs. 25/- and for awarding compensation Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment suffered from him and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point NO-1 the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 25/-. Regarding the claim of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- are concerned, as discussed above, the conduct of the Respondent in not promptly replying to the legal notice which could have been prevented from filing this complaint if really the complainants claim was not lawful and that the Respondent in not contesting the case before this Forum are taken into account coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent shall refund Rs. 25/- collected towards Rajahamsa Bus Fare charges from Neermanvi to Raichur. The Respondent shall also pay a global compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order with in (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-02-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant P.R. Patil @ Pampanagouda against Respondent-Divisional Controller NEKRTC Divisional Office Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- On 22-09-07 the complainant was coming from Neermanvi to Raichur in the Respondent Bus- Koppal to Raichur bearing No. KA-36/F-457. The complainant was having monthly Bus Pass bearing NE/A-003692 which was valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07. But the Respondent employee/conductor bearing Batch No. 2220 did not accept the said Pass by stating that this is not an ordinary Bus it is Rajahamsa Bus and the Pass is not valid for that Bus. When the complainant was ready to pay the bus fare for that the said conductor has given Ordinary Bus Fare Ticket for Rs. 25/- bearing No. 00004100 dt. 22-09-07. According to him when the complainant was having valid Bus Pass the Respondent employee has not accepted the same and when he was ready to pay Rajahamsa Bus Fare, the conductor instead of issuing Rajahamsa Bus Fare has issued ordinary Bus Fair Ticket. The complainant being a reputed and prestigious person and due to the above said acts of the Conductor/Respondent employee he suffered mentally for not accepting his Bus Pass for Rajahamsa Bus and valid Fare Ticket and due to rude behavior his image was lowered in the presence of public and was shamed. The acts and attitude of the Respondent employee amounts to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental agony and damage to his image. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction for returning the Bus Fare of Rs. 25/- to the complainant and for awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment for rude behavior of the Respondent employee and for mental harassment along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. In-response to service of notice of the complaint issued by this Forum the Respondent remained absent on 16-01-08 when called out so he has been placed Ex-parte. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of his complaint. He has also produced (4) documents marked at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for complainant perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he was having monthly Bus Pass bearing No. NE/A-003692 valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07. It is also his case that on 23-09-07 he was coming from Neermanvi to Raichur in the Respondent Bus (Koppal-Raichur) bearing No. KA 36/F-457 and the Respondents employee/conductor No. 2220 did not accept his Pass by stating that the Bus is not ordinary and it is Rajahamsa Bus and that the Bus Pass is not valid. When he was ready to pay the Rajahamsa Bus Fare for that the said conductor has given ordinary Bus Fare Ticket of Rs. 25/- bearing No. 00004100 dt. 22-09-07. According to him when he was having valid bus Pass the same was not accepted by the conductor and when he was ready to pay Rajahamsa Bus Fare the Respondent employee issued ordinary Bus Fare Ticket instead of Rajahamsa Bus Fare Ticket. 7. The complainant has produced (4) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Ex.P-1 is the Bus Pass bearing No. NE/A003692 valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07 with his identification No. 014474. A perusal of which it shows that this Bus Pass has been issued for traveling in Ordinary, Express and Non-stop Bus. It also shows the signature of the issuing Authority of the Respondent. Ex.P-2 is the Bus-Ticket dt. 22-09-07 for Rs. 25/- issued by Respondent Corporation. Ex.P-3 is the copy of Legal Notice dt. 04-10-07 issued by the complainants Advocate to the Respondent through RPAD. Ex.P-4 is the Postal Acknowledgement of the service of same showing date seal of the Post Office as 05-10-07. In the Legal Notice Ex.P-3 dt. 04-10-07 the complainant has narrated in detail that on 22-09-07 the complainant was coming from Neermanvi to Raichur in the Koppal-Raichur Bus bearing NO. KA-36/F-457 and that when he showed his monthly Bus Pass NE/A-003692 valid from 25-08-07 to 23-09-07 the Respondents employee/conductor bearing batch No. 2220 not accepted the same by stating that the Bus is not ordinary Bus and it is Rajahamsa Bus. It is further stated that when the complainant was having valid Bus Pass the same was not accepted and when he was ready to pay the Bus Fare of Rajahamsa Bus the conductor has issued ordinary Bus Fare Ticket of Rs. 25/-. So his image was lowered in the public and was ashamed and rude behavior of the conductor amounts to deficiency in service of Respondent for which he suffered mental agony and thereby the Respondent was called upon to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with cost of legal notice and charges within (15) days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which the complainant would be constrained to take appropriate legal action in the competent court of law. The Xerox copy of the Bus Pass and Xerox copy of Bus Ticket issued by the conductor were enclosed to the said notice. 8. The legal notice issued by counsel for complainant has been served on the Respondent-Divisional controller NEKRTC Divisional Office Raichur vide Postal Acknowledgement at Ex.P-4 which bears date, seal of the Post Office as on 05-10-07. The Respondent has not appeared before this Forum in-spite of service of notice issued by this Forum vide postal acknowledgement and so he has been placed Ex-parte. Therefore the conduct of the Respondent in not replying either to the legal notice at Ex.P-3 in-spite of the service vide postal acknowledgement vide Ex.P-4 and having not appeared before this Forum in-spite of service of notice issued by this Forum vide postal acknowledgement, amply shows that he has no defence to rebut the case of the complainant. If really the Bus pass issued to the complainant was an ordinary Bus Pass and if really the conductor has issued Rajahamsa Bus Fare Ticket from Neermanvi to Raichur, then what prevented the Respondent from replying to the legal notice of the complainant. It would be more so when the legal notice Ex.P-3 shows enclosure of Xerox copy of Bus Pass vide Ex.P-1 and Xerox copy of Rajahamsa Bus Fare Ticket vide Ex.P-2. The attitude of the Respondent in not replying to the legal notice and not contesting the complaint before this Forum in-spite of service of notice, itself shows that Respondent has no defence to rebut the case of the complainant and thus it further shows deficiency in service by the Respondent as alleged by the complainant. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the Respondent-Divisional Controller NEKRTC Raichur. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 9. The complainant has sought for refund of Bus Fare of Rs. 25/- and for awarding compensation Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment suffered from him and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point NO-1 the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 25/-. Regarding the claim of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- are concerned, as discussed above, the conduct of the Respondent in not promptly replying to the legal notice which could have been prevented from filing this complaint if really the complainants claim was not lawful and that the Respondent in not contesting the case before this Forum are taken into account coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent shall refund Rs. 25/- collected towards Rajahamsa Bus Fare charges from Neermanvi to Raichur. The Respondent shall also pay a global compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order with in (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-02-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.