BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI, B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 37 / 2006 WEDNESDAY THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012. Masila Duraisamy, S/o. Masilamani, No.27, 2nd Main Road, S.V.S. Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 87. … Complainant. - Vs – The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Division I) Villupuram Ltd., Rangapuram, Sathuvachari, Vellore -9. … Opposite party . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 21.12.11, in the presence of Thiru. S. Prakesh Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. M. Meganathan, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a retired Headmaster his family is residing at Cheyyar. As a retired Headmaster he commands wide respect and status in society. He is a double post graduate with qualifications of M.A. M.E.d., On 12.4.05 at 10.15 A.M. he boarded the bus TN-23-N-1568 at Cheyyar and took a ticket for Vandavasi. Normally the ticket fare from Cheyyar to Vandavasi is Rs.6.50. But the conductor Subramani issued a ticket for Rs.8.00. The ticket number is 050518. When the complainant enquired regarding the higher fare collected, the conductor started shouting and abusing the complainant in Vulgarest epithets. The conductor not only abused him but also had the audacity even to assault him. The opposite party corporation being a government undertaking ought not to permit such atrocities on the consumers. As a result of such discourteous treatment the petitioner has been put to share shame and loss of reputation. He has suffered shock, pain mental agony. The behaviour of the conductor towards the petitioner in his capacity as a passenger is disgusting and amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant sent a complaint letter dt.15.4.06 to the opposite party corporation. Subsequently he had also enquired regarding the action on his complaint over telephone. But till date there has been no response. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint claiming damages. The cause of action for the complaint arose on 12.4.06 when complaint boarded the bus TN-23-N-1568 at Cheyyar and purchased the ticket bearing No.050518 for traveling to Vandavasi. Therefore the complainant prayed this Forum for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the discourteous treatment meted out to the complainant and loss of reputation suffered by him Rs.25,000/- towards shock, pain and mental agony suffered by the complainant together with interest and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking a direction of this Forum to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for discourteous treatment meted out by him and loss of reputation suffered by him and another Rs.25,000/- towards shock, pain and mental agony suffered by him together with interest and a cost of Rs.5000/- is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainants are not consumer as described in the C.P. Act, hence they are not entitled to file the above complaint before this Forum as Consumers Dispute. They deny and repudiate the averments and allegations stated in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted by them and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. Their conductor collected the fare fixed by the Transport Corporation only. He did not collect any higher fare as his own. He explained the things regarding the fare to the complainant submissively. But the complainant himself got wild and shouted against the conductor without any reason and he used defamatory words against him. He did not give respect to a public servant. The conductor neither assaulted the complainant nor used harsh words against the complainant. After the receipt of a complaint letter dt. 15.4.06 from the complainant they made enquiries and obtained a statement from the said conductor and he was transferred him from his post to Town Bus as a conductor even though there is no fault on him. The opposite party sent the proceedings copy 25.4.06 regarding the steps taken against the complainant’s letter given against the above conductor. They properly taken steps on the request given by the complainant. The complain filed against the conductor is lack of bonafide and devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): The complainant contended that on 12.4.05 at 10.15 A.M. the complainant boarded the bus TN-23-N-1568 at Cheyyar and took a ticket for Vandavasi. Normally the ticket fare from Cheyyar to Vandavasi is Rs.6.50. But the Conductor Subramani issued a ticket for Rs.8.00. When the complainant enquired about the higher fare collected, the conductor started shouting and abusing the complainant in vulgarest manner. Hence the behaviour of the conductor towards the complainant in his capacity as a passenger is disgusting and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 8. The opposite party contended that their conductor collected the fare fixed by the Transport Corporation and the conductor did not collect any higher fare as his own. Further, he explained the things regarding the fare to the complainant submissively, but the complainant himself got wild and shouted against the conductor without any reason, and he used defamatory words against him. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the conductor of the opposite party. 9. Admittedly the complainant has sent a complaint letter Ex.A1, dt. 15.4.2006 to the opposite party, and after receipt of the said letter, the opposite party made enquiries against the conductor and obtained a statement Ex.B3 from the conductor. According to the complainant normally the ticket fare from Cheyyar to Vandavasi is Rs.6.50, but the conductor Subramani issued a ticket for Rs.8.00. When the complainant enquired regarding the higher fare collected, the conductor started shouting and abusing the complainant in Vulgarest manner. From the perusal of explanation letter Ex.B3 given by the said conductor of the opposite party it is mentioned as follows: “eh‹ 12.4.06 m‹W jl« v© 130/A t©o v© TN23/ 1568 v‹w jl¤Âš gâif#353; brŒah#353; 10.15 kâ¡F t©o vL¤J tªjthbršY«nghJ, #174;thf¤jhš m§f#161;f¥g£l uÎ gaz f£l¤ij gaâfS¡F tH§» gz f£lz« tN#164;J bfh©L ÏUªnj‹. m¥nghJ xU gaâ brŒah® tªjth#161;F gaz f£lz‹ 6.50 fhR jh‹ V‹ 8.00 %ghŒ tNš brŒ»#174;fŸ v‹W nf£lh®. mj‰F eh‹ Iah ÏJ #174;thf¤jhš m§#161;f¥g£l uÎ gaz f£lz« v‹W gš T¿nd‹. nk‰go vªj jfuhW« V‰gl#353;iy v‹gij Iah mt®fS¡F bj¤J¡bfhŸ»nw‹. ÏJ jh‹ elªj c©ik. The opposite party also stated in their proof affidavit that the conductor of the said bus collected the fare fixed by the Corporation authorities, and he did not collect any excess fare as his own. The conductor explained the same to the complainant when he was questioned about the higher fare collected. The bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-1568 was plying as an express bus on 12.4.2006 from Chennai to Vandavasi. The ticket fare of the said bus TN-23-N-1568 marked as Ex.B2. From the perusal of Ex.B2 the ticket fare chart of the bus TN-23-N-1568 it is seen that the ticket fare for express bus from Cheyyar to Vandavasi is Rs.8.00 and the fare for ordinary bus from Cheyyar to Vandavasi is Rs.6.50. Admittedly the complainant boarded the bus TN-23-N-1568 at Cheyyar route No.130/A . at Cheyyar and took ticket for Vandavasi. As per the fare chart Ex.B4 by issued by the Deputy Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation the said conductor Thiru. Subramani issued ticket for Rs.8.00 to the complainant. Therefore it is clear that the said conductor collected the fare fixed by the transport authorities. 10. According to the opposite party after receipt of the complaint letter Ex.A1 dt.15.4.06, the opposite party made enquiries against the conductor and obtained the statement Ex.B3 from the said conductor. Further, he was transferred from his post to Town Bus as a conductor even though there is no fault on him. From the perusal of Ex.B2, dt. 25.4.06 proceedings of opposite party, sent to the complainant, it is mentioned as follows: “gh®it#353; fhQ« j§f#8249; h® foj¤Âš bj¤JŸsgo 12.4.06 m‹W j§f#8249; gaz¤Â‹ nghJ V‰g£l Ï‹dY¡F Ï¡fHf¤Â‹ rh®ghf tU¤j¤ij bj¤J¡bfhŸ»nwh«. j§f#8249; h® r«kªj¥g£l el¤Jdiu cldoahf ef® gâ jl¤ÂªJ #161;» efu¤ jl¤Âš gâ brŒa kh‰w« brŒa¥g£LŸsh®. nkY«, m›t¥nghJ mªel¤Jd#8249; gâ#353; grhjf®fŸ _y« f©fhâ¡f¥g£L tU»wJ v‹gij#171; j§fS¡F f#206;l‹ bj¤J¡bfhŸ»nwh«. “ Even though the conductor collected a correct fare from Cheyyar to Vandavasi, there was a Quarreled between the complainant and the conductor, regarding the fare collected by the conductor. After the receipt of a complaint letter dt.15.4.06 from the complainant the opposite partly immediately made enquiry against the conductor and he was also transferred to town bus, and the opposite partly informed the same to the complainant through Ex.B2, dt. 25.4.06 proceedings. 11. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainants herein. 12. POINT NO : (b ) In view of our findings on points (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 4th day of January 2012. MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 15.4.06 - X-copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party Corporation. Ex.A2- -- - Professional Courier Receipt. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- -- - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.B2- 25.4.06 - X-copy of the letter by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of explanation letter to the opposite party. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of Stage fare by the opposite party. MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT | | 
