Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/464/2015

Sanjay M Kakade - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Controller NWKSRTC - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

                 

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.464/2015

 

                       Date of filing: 23/09/2015

 

                                                               Date of disposal:08/02/2017

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT      -

Shri.Sanjay S/o Manohar Kakade, Age: 51 Years, Occ: usiness, R/o: Arvind Complex, # 1552, Maruti Galli, Belgavi.                                                 (Inperson.)

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Belgavi Division, Belagavi.                            (Rep. by Sri.T.C.Modagi, Adv.)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Smt.J.S. Kajagar, Lady Member.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directed to pay an amount of Rs.1920/- to the complainants and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and any other reliefs.

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

 

          It is case of the complainant that, the complainant had booked two tickets on website of OP i.e. www.ksrtc.in on 17.08.2015 from Nasik to Belgavi, Volvo Multi-Axle, Service Class-Airavat Gold Class and the date of journey was 21.08.2015,
Seat No.23 & 24 departures from Nasik Bus Stand at 6-00 P.M. and the payment of Rs.1968/- was debited successful to the complainant account and further, the complainant had received an e-mail which was blank and not received any information about the reservation of the ticket and even not received any SMS about the details of the above said ticket.

          It is further case of the complainant that, 10 minutes after booking the ticket seat No.23 & 24, checked the availability on
dtd: 21.08.2015 were made available, looking to the said situation the complainant went to the reservation counter at CBT Belgavi in order to make an enquiry about the availability of the Seat No.23 & 24, the operator told that, the booked ticket at the counter for safer side and further as per the suggestion of the operator, the complainant once again booked the ticket for the same journey and paid the amount of Rs.1920/- for the two tickets and collected the tickets (Ticket No.34975153).

 

          It is further complainant contended that, on 21.08.2015 the complainant had received the SMS for disclosing the details of the journey time at about 5.52 P.M., but complainant reached five minutes late i.e. at 6.05 P.M. the complainant and his friend produced physical tickets and SMS to the bus conductor, but the conductor told that, they reached lately and because of this the Seat No.23 & 24 was allotted to some other persons. in this regard the complainant and his friend protested the act of the bus conductor and showed the physical ticket and even SMS of the OP and requested to allow the journey, but the bus conductor was refused the request of the complainant and further the complainant had no alternative again purchase the two tickets (Ticket No.061681 of Rs.953/- each) and paid an amount of Rs.1906/-  and reached the Belagavi. Looking to the circumstance and situation, it discloses that, the Op has not given the proper service to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

Finally the complainant has issued notice to the OP on dtd:28.08.2015, the notice was duly served to the OP and Op issued reply to the complainant which was in vague and further it is noted that, recently the OP has paid an amount of Rs.1968/- to the complainant through RTGS which is refund of the online booked ticket on 17.08.2015 and further complainant contended that, the Op has not paid the bus fair charges which was paid by the complainant on 21.08.2015 by cash, this attitude of the Op, the complainant has suffered heavy loss and sustained mental agony. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.

3.      After receipt of said notice, the OP appeared through his counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant that, the complaint is not at all maintainable as the allegations made in the complainant does not constitute deficiency service or negligence as defined under the provision of C.P. Act and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

          It is case of the Op that, the Op has given proper service to the complainant and the OP cannot act against the rules laid down by the corporation in providing the services to the passengers, the Op is producing herewith the copy of the ticket which has been cancelled and further the instructions were given to the passengers backside of the ticket is that, “Please keep the ticket safely till the end of the Journey”, the meaning of the said instruction is that, the passenger must hold the original ticket till end of the journey, but the passenger failed to produce the original tickets, as such he was asked to produce another ticket and further the OP had paid the amount of Rs.1968/-  through online booked.

 

          It is further OP contended that, the complainant has failed to produce the original ticket which has booked at the counter at the time of journey and he was asked to purchase another ticket and further the Op specifically submitted that, the conductor of the bus allotted the same seat to the complainant, when complainant purchased the ticket in the bus are all false and denied by the OP and there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OP conductor in demanding the complainant to purchase the ticket. Hence, the Op has prayed for dismissed the complaint.

 

 

4.      Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case, the documents produced on behalf of the complainant which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8, as against this, the OP produced 04 documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, for sake of our convenience, we have marked P & R series. The complainant Inperson has filed his written argument and heard the argument of both sides. 

           Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points are arise for our consideration:

 

01.Whether the complainant has proved that, there is deficiency of service on the part of Op?

 

02.What order?

 

 

5.      Answer to the above Points:-

 

01. Negative.

 

02. As per final Order.

 

 

R E A S O N S:-

 

6.      Point No.1: After perusing the evidence of both parties, written version and detail observing written argument of complainant, the case of the complainant that, the complainant has once again booked the two tickets for his journey from Nasik to Belgavi on 21.08.2015 as per the suggestion of the operator and  the complainant booked ticket at KSRTC bus stand counter, the operator told that, the at the counter for safer side and the tickets are available of Seat No.23 & 24 and paid the amount of Rs.1920/- for the two tickets and collected the tickets (Ticket No.34975153) which is marked as Ex.P-1 and further case of the complainant that, on the same day the complainant had received the SMS for disclosing the details of the journey time at about 5.52 P.M. which is marked as Ex.P-2 Xerox copy of the SMS, but the complainant reached five minutes late i.e. at 6.05 P.M. the complainant and his friend produced physical tickets and SMS to the bus conductor.

 

In our consider view that, if above contention consider for argument point of view and such is case, the complainant and the other passenger could have object to the conductor at the time of demand another tickets to the complainant and the passengers of the said bus and complainant could have lodged complaint before the authority and even for that proposition, the complainant has not filed affidavit evidence of passenger of said bus, but it is not done. Therefore, in our consider view that, the contention contended in complainant as well as affidavit evidence has not acceptable and the complainant has not established his case by producing supporting affidavit evidence, cogent and believable evidence to show that, on the day of journey the complainant has  produced the original ticket which has booked at the counter before the conductor when demanded.  

 

The case of the OP is that, by looking to the affidavit evidence and written version, it is evident that, at the time of journey by the complainant has failed to produced the original ticket, when conductor asked to show ticket/produced, complainant unable to show/produced the original ticket, it is crystal clear that, if complainant had original ticket at the time of journey, the complainant could have produced the same before the conductor and the question does not arise to purchase the ticket as demanded by the conductor, then the complainant would have been produced the ticket when asked by the conductor, it means that, the complainant has not produced the original ticket. Therefore, he has purchased the ticket, as demanded by the conductor as per the notification which is marked as Ex.R-1, i.e. rules of OP Corporation which is reproduced as below, “¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ «AqÉÆà §ÄQÌAUï PËAlgÀ/CªÀvÁgÀ CrAiÀÄ°è nPÉÃmï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÉƨÁ¬Ä®£À°è ªÀÄÆ® nPÉÃlzÀ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ªÉƨÁ¬Ä®£À°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ® nPÉÃlªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.”

 

Looking to the fact and circumstance of the case, we have observed that even the complainant not at all proves his case by giving material and cogent document in respect of deficiency or negligence of service on the part of the OP. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency. So, looking from any angle the complainant can’t claim compensation from Op and when there is no deficiency on the part of the Op. Accordingly, we answer this Point negative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

 

 

O R D E R

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

 

No order as to costs. 

 

 

           

(This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 08^th day of February, 2017).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.