Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

239/2014

Dr.P.Jayavelu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation Tamilnadu Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Sathish

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 20^th   DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.239/2014

 

 

Dr.P.Jayavelu,

S/o. Late Perumal,

No.5 & 6, Dhanalakshmi Avenue,

Kanniamman Koil 2^nd Street,

Vanagaram,

Chennai – 600 095.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The General Manager,

State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd.,

(Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking),

Thiruvalluvar House,

Pallavan Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.The Manager,

State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd.,

Mattuthavani,

Madurai.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.V.Sathish , P.T.Geotom

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : M/s.T.Natarajan

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.12,250/- towards the ticket charges and also to pay    compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant booked 28 tickets on 27.09.2012 through online to travel in the opposite parties transport service from Madurai to Chennai on 23.11.2012. After attending the marriage at Madurai all of them went to Mattuthavani Bus Stand  at 7.30 p.m on 23.11.2012 including the complainant to board the bus. All of them get into the bus. At that time the complainant found that the original tickets were misplaced somewhere. The complainant wife told him that she is having the photocopy of the tickets. Based on such tickets they requested the 2^nd opposite party to permit them to travel in the bus. The conductor of the bus refused to permit them to travel with the copy of the tickets.

          2. The complainant went to the 2^nd opposite party office and requested to permit them to travel with the copy of the ticket as the railways are permitting to travel with the copy of the ticket. The 2^nd opposite party refused the request complainant as their rules are not permitting to travel with the copy of the ticket. Further the railway rules are not applicable for the opposite parties. Hence the complainant was forced to travel after buying new tickets in the same bus. Further, the bus in which they travelled not in a good condition and the seats were totally damaged and found difficult to travel. Hence the opposite party committed deficiency in service and therefore the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.12,250/- towards ticket charges and also to pay  compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint.  

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY ADOPTED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The present complaint is barred by limitation. Even as per the contents of the complaint, the alleged cause of action for instituting the present complaint arose on 27.09.2012, when the complainant bought tickets through on-line ticket reservation for travelling from Madurai to Chennai. If at all the complainant is aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties, the complaint ought to have been preferred the complaint within a period of two years from the date of cause of action i.e., the complaint should have been filed on or before 26.09.2014. Whereas the complaint has been filed only during the month of December 2014, which is well beyond the period of limitation. Hence on this ground alone the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4. It is not the case of the complainant that he was in possession of the original tickets and inspite of producing the same, the complainant along with his relatives were not allowed to travel in the bus. On the other hand, due to the carelessness of the complainant, he not only put himself in difficult, but also his relatives who had accompanied him. The complainant  not being diligent enough to keep the tickets safely, cannot blame the opposite parties for his ordeal. The railways are allowing the passengers to travel with copy of the ticket will not hold good and the complainant  cannot expect the Transport Corporation to follow the same rules and regulations which is alleged  to be followed by Railway department. The opposite party Corporation only insisted the complainant to produce the original tickets to travel and the opposite party was well within its rules for denying the complainant and his relatives to travel with Photostat copy of the tickets. The complainant himself should be blamed for the alleged difficulties faced by him.

5. The complainant arranged funds to buy the tickets are not within the knowledge of this opposite party. At no point of time the opposite party Corporation informed the complainant that he would refund the advance booking fare after producing the original tickets along with the tickets which he had bought on 23.11.2012. After having travelled in the bus, the complainant is in no way justified to demand the refund of advance booking fare on the tickets booked for travel. It was only on the insistence of the complainant, the time keeper of the opposite party corporation has endorsed on the rear side of the copy of the tickets that “not permitted to travel as original ticket is not available and permitted to travel after purchase of tickets”. The bus was not in good condition, seats were in damaged condition, no filter provided in the space provided for A/c is false and concocted. The said allegations have been made only for the sake of his case and it is not supported by any documentary evidence.  It is not clear as to how the complainant is entitled for refund of advance booking fare of ticket after having travelled in the bus. Hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant  booked 28 tickets on 27.09.2012 through online tickets reservation system to travel from Madurai to Chennai on 23.11.2012  after attending the complainant son marriage that day and on the date of evening at about 7.30 p.m they went to Mattuthavani bus stand and boarded the bus at that time the complainant found that he did not possess the original tickets of Ex.A1 to travel in the bus and the complainant  wife was having the Photostat copy of the tickets and the conductor of the bus did not permit them to travel with Photostat copies and hence the complainant went to the 2^nd opposite party   to permit them to travel and however due to the pressure made by the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party made Ex.A3 endorsement that they cannot permit them to travel with the Xerox copy of the ticket and hence the complainant and others have purchased Ex.A2 tickets and thereafter travelled to Chennai.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiency is that the opposite parties have not permitted to travel with the Photostat copy of the tickets and also the first opposite party refused to refund the ticket. The opposite party would reply that there is no rule available that the passengers can be permitted to travel with Photostat copies, hence the 2^nd opposite party refused to permit the complainant and others to travel cannot be construed as deficiency.

          9. The complainant gave Ex.A4 representative with original tickets to refund the money and for the same gave Ex.A5 reply that rule doesn’t permit to refund the money. The complainant has not produced any rules that how he is entitled for refund of the money.

          10. The 1^st opposite party gave Ex.A5 reply dated 04.12.2012 that they cannot refund the tickets charges. From that date the complaint should have been filed within two years period as per section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act i.e on or before 04.12.2014. However, this complaint is filed on 09.12.2014 with a delay of five days in filing the complaint. To condone the delay of five days no petition has been filed by the complainant. Therefore this complaint is filed by the complainant with a delay of five days and hence the complaint is barred by limitation.

          11. Since the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation and also as discussed above, it is held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.09.2012                   Tickets booked for travelling from Madurai to

                                                    Chennai

 

Ex.A2 dated 23.11.2012                   Tickets purchased by the complainant for travel

                                                     from Madurai to Chennai

 

Ex.A3 dated 23.11.2012                   Endorsement made by the 2^nd opposite party in the

                                                     Photostat copy of the ticket

 

Ex.A4 dated 24.11.2012                   Requisition made by the complainant for refund of

                                                     Money

 

Ex.A5 dated 04.12.2012                   Reply of the 1^st opposite party along with the

                                                     postal cover

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                ….. NIL …..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT