Date of Filing:17.09.2009<br /> Date of Order: 18.06.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2232 OF 2009<br /> Master R. Ajay<br /> Rep. by his Father and Natural Guardian<br /> Sri S.K. Rajendra B.A., M.S.W.,L.L.B.<br /> S/o. S. Kumar<br /> Advocate, R/at No. 26/1-399<br /> Near Veerabhadreshwara Swamy Temple<br /> Hagadur, Immadihalli Post, Whitefield<br /> Bangalore 560 066 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Managing Director<br /> Bangalore Metropolitan Transport<br /> Corporation (BMTC)<br /> K.H. Road, Shantinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 027 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant’s son Ajay is a minor is good in his academic studies. He is studying II PUC. He is traveling from his residence at Whitefield to Anand Rao Circle. He has obtained BMTC pass and has paid Rs. 1,570/- for his son. The pass is called ‘travel as you like pass’. The complainant herein submits that on 30.08.2009 being the birthday of his son, his son came to Whitefield bus stop to go to his college to attend special class. Pushpak bus route No. 333E having bus No. KA 01 FA 848 from Kadugodi to Bangalore Bus Stand came to Whitefield Mayura Bakery Bus Stop. Ajay boarded the bus. When the driver cum conductor asked the pass complainant’s son shown the bus pass. The said driver cum conductor refused to allow complainant’s son to travel in the said pass saying that pass is not allowed. The complainant’s son informed the conductor he is entitled to travel in pushpak and also in Suvarna Bus. He asked the driver name and batch number. At that juncture the driver cum conductor of the above bus has used bad, foul and filthy language. When the complainant’s son has refused to get down from bus the driver cum conductor manhandled him and got him down from the bus by beating him. Attitude of the driver is very shameful and has to be condemned. The son of the complainant was humiliated in front of the public. The driver cum conductor failed to allow to travel in the said bus inspite of valid student pass amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The above incident was immediately brought to the notice of the concerned person of the opposite party by sending e-mail on the same day. Opposite party has replied to e-mail wherein they have condemned unbecoming behaviour and also informed that driver has been directed to appear for a personal hearing and strict action will be initiated. Complainant has not received any response for his letter which has been sent by speed post on 31.08.2009. Therefore, complainant is forced to approach this Hon’ble Forum for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the complainant has prayed to grant compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment, insult and injury, beating and manhandling, using bad filthy language of the employee of the opposite party and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defence version stating that driver cum conductor is a necessary to the proceeding. Opposite party stated that if at all driver cum conductor manhandled the son of complainant he must have given police complaint against driver. The driver of opposite party has failed to allow the student to travel in the bus in spite of valid student pass is denied. But opposite party has submitted that e-mail was received and opposite party has replied to his mail dated 02.09.2009 wherein they have condemned the unbecoming behaviour and also informed that the said driver has been directed to appear for a personal hearing at their office and strict action will be initiated is correct and as per C & D rules of Corporation. Opposite party was prompt in expressing its regrets and ensuring action against the said employee pending departmental enquiry. The enquiry is conducted against the driver. Charge sheet dated 10.10.2009 was issued against him and he has given reply. Departmental enquiry will be conducted against driver cum conductor as per C & D regulation. In the charge sheet complainant and his father were cited as witnesses and they will be called at the time of department enquiry. For all these reasons stated above the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences of both Master Ajay and his father Rajendra who is an advocate have been filed. On behalf of opposite party affidavit evidence of Assistant Traffic Manager has been filed.<br /> 4. Respective parties have filed documents.<br /> 5. Arguments are heard.<br /> 6. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony, harassment, insult, injury etc.? If, so what is the quantum of compensation?<br /> <br /> 7. It is admitted fact of the parties that Master R. Ajay is a holder of pass of opposite party called ‘travel as you like pass’. The complainant Ajay boarded the opposite party bus on 30.08.2009. The driver cum conductor of the bus refused to allow him to travel in the said bus even though the student is having valid and effective pass. The driver not only asked the student to get down from the bus, he used bad and filthy language in the present of other passengers and it is also alleged that boy was manhandled by the driver and made him to get down from the bus. Thus, high handedness of driver cum conductor of opposite party definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The student was studying in PUC and on 30.08.2009 it was his birthday. Therefore, on the day of birthday to a particular person if anything insulting happens it is really very shocking and it becomes mental agony, stress and shock. No amount of compensation will compensate insult, shock and mental agony. The complainant intimated high handedness of the driver to the opposite party by sending complaint and letters. The opposite party has sent letter to the complainant stating that “BMTC deeply regrets & condemns the unbecoming behaviour of the driver / conductor. In BMTC the drivers & conductors are being given reorientation training on a regular basis with special emphasize on courteous behaviour towards commuters & incidents like this come as real shock to us, it appears more need to be done in this direction. However the said driver has been directed to appear for a personal hearing in this office and strict action will be initiated against the driver.” The opposite party has framed charge sheet against driver Rajendra Gowda and departmental enquiry has been initiated and matter is still pending. The copy of the charge sheet served on the driver cum conductor produced had been produced by the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission in a case between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Mukhtyar Singh in a Revision Petition No. 2349/2006 has come heavily on the Delhi Transport Corporation. It has been observed harassment of a common man by public authorities is a socially abhorring and legally impermissible. Compensation is granted in that case to the passenger for manhandling by the DTC staff. The complainant has also produced judgement copy of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore passed in appeal No. 2454/2006 dated 21.11.2006. In that judgement also compensation of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded to the passenger against North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. The facts stated by the complainant in this case and by the several documents produced by the complainant and authorities, it is very clear that the complainant has proved beyond doubt the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant has produced another decision of National Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition No. 115/2006 between B.L. Sood Vs Delhi Transport Corporation. In this case also DTC was ordered to pay compensation to the passenger and it was observed that it would be open to the Transport Corporation to recover the compensation paid from the concerned driver who misbehaved with the complainant. The opposite party being an employer of the misbehaved Driver cum Conductor is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the complainant. It is upto the opposite party to recover the amount from the concerned driver after the departmental enquiry. It is the consistent opinion of the Hon’ble National Commission that the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment and misbehaviour and the driver / conductor can no more claim to be under any protective cover. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta it is observed the department concerned to pay amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour. So taking into consideration of all the authorities and the facts and circumstances of the case it is fit case to grant compensation. The complainant has prayed Rs. 75,000/- as compensation. On the facts and circumstances of the case I feel the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in this case. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. <br /> 9. The opposite party is directed to send the amount by way of D.D. or cheque to the complainant directly with intimation to this forum. <br /> 10. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> 11. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 45 days as ordered above, the above amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation. <br /> 12. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />