Date of Filing: 24.01.2011
Date of Order: 23.04.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 156 OF 2011
Chaithanya Lakshmi M.
W/o. Jayaprakash K.P.
R/at No. 42, 1st Main, 2nd Cross
Maruthi Nagar Madivala
Bangalore 560 068 Complainant
V/S
1. The Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation, Sarige Bhavan, K.H. Road
Bangalore
Rep. by its Managing Director
2. The Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation, Mangalore Division
Bijai, Mangalore 575 004 Opposite Parties
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The facts of the case are that complainant had purchased two tickets to go to Puttur and come back to Bangalore from the opposite party. Boarding time was fixed as per the ticket 23.40 for return journey. The complainant waited at Puttur bus stand on 14.11.2010 from 23.00 hrs. Even after past midnight bus did not turn up. Complainant repeatedly called on the telephone and enquiry about the arrival of the bus. The opposite parties’ staff were so rude and abused complainant with filthy language. Innumerable calls made to opposite party were of no use. Complainant had surprise quiz to be attended in the college. In view of the cancellation of the bus she could not arrive to Bangalore on 15.11.2010 and consequently she was absent for the examination conducted by the college. She lost valuable 5 marks on the examination for no fault of her. Same cannot be estimated in terms of money. Cancellation of bus without prior intimation amounts to dereliction of duty and deficiency of service. Complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party. Opposite party had admitted the cancellation of bus and refunded Rs. 493/-. Complainant had accepted the same under protest. Therefore, the complainant has prayed that opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and inconvenience caused to her along with litigation cost.
2. The opposite party has filed defence version sating that legal notice had been already answered. Due to mechanical defects of the bus the said bus was not able to reach at schedule time. Complainant received the ticket amount of Rs. 495/-. Due to mechanical defect bus was cancelled. Same was bonafide. Therefore, opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.
3. Arguments are heard.
4. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so, what would be quantum of compensation?
REASONS
5. Almost all the facts are admitted in this case. The opposite parties had addressed letter to the advocate of complainant dated 03.01.2011. The said letter is produced at document No. 6. for better appreciation of the facts of the case it is better to reproduce the letter of the opposite party which is in kannada:
“ PÀ£ÁlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ: ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ: ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
©eÉÊ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 575004 BEJAI MANGALORE 575004
¸ÀA: PÀgÁgÀ:ªÀÄA«:¸ÀAZÁgÀ:zÀÆgÀÄ:697 5349 10-11 ¢£ÁAPÀ 28-12-2010/3-1-11
²æà PÉ. ²æúÀj
CqÉÆéÃPÉÃmï
# 203, nÖ¸ï PÁA¥ÉèPïì
33 gÉøï PÉÆøïð gÀ¸ÉÛ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 1
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ : ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ nPÉÃlÄ PÁ¢j¹zÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt¸À¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
G¯ÉèÃR : vÀªÀÄä zÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢: 25.11.2010
*****
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, vÀªÀÄä PÀQëzÁgÀgÁzÀ PÀÄ. ZÉÊvÀ£Àå®Qëöä JA. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.11.2010 gÀAzÀÄ 22.40 gÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ - ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ªÉǯÉÆéà ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ nPÉÃlÄ PÁ¢j¹zÀÄÝ ºÀvÀÄÛªÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥ÀÄvÀÆÛgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtzÀ ¢£À ¥ÀÄvÀÆÛj£À°è PÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À §gÀzÉà ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt¸À®Ä DUÀzÉà GAmÁzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ w½¹, CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV vÁªÀÅ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃj PÀ¼ÀĹzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVzÉ.
F §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ, ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ PÁ¢j¹zÀ ªÁºÀ£À vÁAwæPÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÁV gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ CªÀjUÁzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉUÁV «µÁzÀ ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉõÀgÀvï PÀëªÉÄAiÀiÁa¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ºÁUÀÆ vÁªÀÅ PÁ¢j¹zÀ nPÉÃlÄ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 493/-£ÀÄß zsÀ£ÁzÉñÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ F ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-
»jAiÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj
PÀgÁgÀ¸Á¸ÀA¸ÉÜ: ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
CqÀPÀ : 1 zsÀ£ÁzÉñÀ”
6. By this letter it is very clear that the scheduled bus had not reached Puttur on 14.11.2010 at 23.40. The said bus was cancelled for technical defects. The opposite party had expressed regret and also apologized the complainant for the inconvenience caused due to the cancellation of bus. By this letter it is clear that deficiency in service has occurred on the part of opposite party. No further proof is required to establish the case of the complainant. The opposite party has not produced record or document to show that bus was cancelled due to mechanical defect. Therefore, the defence of the opposite party cannot be accepted. The complainant had to attend surprise quiz (Internal Assessment Exam) at her college. Due to cancellation of bus she could not reach Bangalore on 15.11.2010 and consequently, she was forced to remain absent for the exam and she lost valuable 5 marks for no fault of her. The complainant definitely suffered mental agony and inconvenience. Waiting for the bus is really horrible thing. The complainant’s mental agony cannot be estimated in terms of money. However, the complainant restricted her claim to Rs. 10,000/- since, the opposite party has committed deficiency of service. On the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just, fair and reasonable to grant Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience caused to her. It is also just, fair and reasonable to grant Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the present litigation. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers. The complainant being a ‘Consumer’ under the Act her interests requires to be protected for the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant along with Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
8. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount as ordered above to the complainant by way of D.D. / cheque within 4 weeks from the date of order with intimation to this forum.
9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
