By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The daughter of the Complainant Anaga. P. Nair has been appointed as Agricultural Officer in Canara
-2-
bank and training programme for the same was fixed on 10.09.2017 at 9 am at Bangalore. So, he booked two tickets for them on 30.08.2017 in Super Deluxe Airbus of KSRTC from Kalpetta to Bangalore through e-booking facility of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. An amount of Rs. 1316/- has been deducted from his account as the total fare of the bus. He has given adhar card details, email id and mobile number at the time of booking. The date of journey was 09.09.2017 at 22.23 hours. The seat numbers allowed were 9 and 10. The Complainant reached at the stipulated place and time on 09.09.2017 and waited for the bus. But, the bus was not come. He tried on several occasions to contact the Kozhikode KSRTC Office. But his attempt was not succeeded. At last, he was able to contact the KSRTC Office, Kozhikode at 12 pm. He was informed from the office that there was no such service on that day. If the service is not available, Opposite Parties are liable to inform the passenger and to make alternative arrangement. So, the opposite parties ought to have informed the complainant about the non-availability of the service through email or mobile phone. Then the Complainant and daughter reached to the destination by the bus of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation without booking. So, their journey was very tedious. The situation of waiting in the midnight for hours with his 22 years old
-3-
daughter was very terrible to the Complainant as a father. So he felt mental agony, uneasiness and hardships. The irresponsible act of KSRTC is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. If the Complainant and his daughter were not able to catch the Karnataka RTC, his daughter had even lost her life achievement in getting a job in Canara Bank. So the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the Complainant for the inconvenience sustained to him and his daughter. Therefore he sent a lawyer notice to the Opposite Parties on 20.09.2017. Though, they received the notice, they have not sent any reply. Hence this complaint to get back the bus fare of Rs. 1316/- with 12 % interest till realization, to get Rs.1 lakh as compensation and to get Rs.10,000/- as cost from the Opposite Parties.
3. Both the opposite parties filed version separately with same contentions. So, for the sake of convenience, I have to narrate their contentions in brief as follows:-
They admitted that complainant had booked two tickets to Banglore in KSRTC for the journey on 09.09.2017 at 22.23 hours and he was unable to get bus. KSRTC used to arrange additional buses considering the number of passengers.
-4-
But, they compelled to cancel some buses due to the non-availability of buses. The passengers were allowed to book tickets online for the journey on 02.09.2017 to 09.09.2017 for the buses at 19.45, 20.45 and 21.00 to Bangalore. But due to the non-availability of buses, they canceled the buses at 19.45, 20.45 and 21.00 and arranged alternative seats in super express buses at 20.00 and 21.30 and directed to inform the passengers through phone. But they have unable to inform the Complainant with regard to cancellation of the bus through the phone number given by him at the time of booking. They were allowed to go to Bangalore in the bus at 21.30 and instructed the conductor to bring them. But the conductor did not saw the complainant and his daughter at the particular place. Conductor also tried to contact the complainant. But he could not contact them. He waited for them for half an hour. Therefore, though other passengers were able to complete their journey, due to lack of communication, the Opposite Parties failed to help the Complainant and his daughter to reach at Banglore. Therefore KSRTC did not harass the Complainant and daughter purposefully. They denied that though the Complainant tried to contact KSRTC Office at Calicut, he did not get the phone connection. If he contacted KSRTC Office at Calicut, he
-5-
should have obtained information with regard to the cancelation of the bus. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed with cost of opposite parties.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice
on the part of Opposite Parties. If so, whether the Complainant is
entitled to get anything as claimed?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, OPW2 and Ext. A1 to A5 Series and Ext.X1. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- This is a complaint from a father who came with his 22 years old daughter for getting KSRTC bus to go to Banglore and thus faced much difficulty to keep his daughter in safe at night near the old Bus stand at Kalpetta. He booked the ticket much earlier. His case is that her daughter was appointed as an Agricultural Officer in Canara Bank and she has to attend a training programme at Banglore on 10.09.2017. According to him, though, he booked two seats in KSRTC bus through E booking facility much earlier in order to go to Banglore, they
-6-
were unable to reach at Bangalore by KSRTC bus due to the deficiency in service from the opposite parties. It is an admitted fact that the Complaint had booked two tickets in KSRTC and unable to get the bus due to it’s cancellation. It is also an admitted fact that the Opposite Parties have not informed the Complainant about the cancellation of the bus and arrangement of alternative bus facility. According to them, even though they tried to contact the Complainant, they did not get him. According to them, even though they have arranged alternative bus to other passengers who booked the seats, they have failed to bring the complainant and his daughter in another bus to Banglore. According to the Complainant, he waited there without knowing the cancelation and reached at Banglore in Karnataka RTC. Therefore he affirmed that he is entitled to get compensation and cost for the mental agony.
7. The complaint has given evidence as PW1 to prove his case. The opposite parties examined OPW1 and OPW2 to substantiate their stand. Ext.A1 is the copy of e-ticket dated 30.08.2017. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the ticket of Karnataka SRTC dated 10.09.2017. Ext.A3 is the Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 20.09.2017, Ext. A4 series are postal Receipts and Ext. A4 series are
-7-
Acknowledgment cards. As I already stated, there is no dispute that complainant booked two tickets in KSRTC for the purpose of his journey on 09.09.2017 with her daughter and they could not proceed with their journey in KSRTC bus. It is also an admitted fact that they have not obtained any information regarding the cancellation of service. The specific case of Opposite Party is that even though, they tried to inform the Complainant about the cancellation of service, they did not contact them and thus according to them, there is no willful default from them.
8. It is evident that the opposite parties failed to inform the complainant about the cancellation of bus booked by him and thus he was forced to go to Bangalore in Karnataka SRTC. There is no dispute that the Opposite Parties have deducted an amount of Rs.1,316/- from the account of Complainant towards the fare of the bus and admittedly the Opposite Parties have not returned this fare to the complainant. It is to be noted that due to the failure on the part of the KSRTC, the Complainant and his daughter were forced to continue their stay at midnight near the old bus stand at Kalpetta to get the booked bus without the knowledge of it’s cancelation. This is a terrible situation because at that time we cannot
-8-
expect any crowd near or around the bus stand. Therefore no doubt, that situation is a pitiable one as far as the Complainant is concerned because his 22 year old daughter was with him. Many cities appear to have become less women friendly on these days. Women cannot stay outside at night without meeting prying eyes and threats of sexual assault. Whether she is accompanied by anybody or not is immaterial to these miscreants. If everything is in their favour, definitely, without any doubt, they will attack her companion to fulfill their lust. So, the Complainant had to take more care to avoid these type of mishaps. Even then, Opposite Parties simply contented that they tried to contact the Complainant and they unabled to get him. OPW1 deposed that just near the old bus stand KSRTC have depot and garage and staffs were available there at night. If the case of the KSRTC that they could not contact the complainant is true, they ought to have sent the staff from the depot to inform the complainant about the cancellation of the bus. Here absolutely there is no evidence to prove that they have tried to contact the complainant in order to bring them to Bangalore. Ext.X1 is the Enquiry Report of the Vigilance Squad of KSRTC. Ext.X1 would go to show that the Vigilance found dereliction of duty on Traffic Controlling Inspector and Station Master of KSRTC who were on duty on that particular day. Even though,
-9-
Opposite Parties contented that they tried to inform the Complainant about the cancellation of the bus, as I already stated, here absolutely there is no documentary evidence to substantiate this stand. On the other hand, the Vigilance Squad of KSRTC itself found omission on their part. Opposite Parties have not tried to send any reply to the Complainant even if, they received the lawyer notice sent. Ext. A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice, Ext.A4 series are the postal receipts and Ext. A5 series are the acknowledgements. The Opposite Parties have no case that they have not received the lawyer notice. So, if the Opposite Parties had any truthfulness, they ought to have show at least their leniency to the aggrieved Complainant through their reply notice. But, they ignored it. Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on opposite parties. So they are liable to compensate the complainant.
9. The complainant wants to get back the ticket fare of Rs. 1316/- with 12% interest per annum, Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost from the opposite parties. Even though the claim of the complainant is exorbitant, definitely he is entitled to get a reasonable amount. No doubt, he is entitled to
-10-
get fare of the ticket with reasonable interest. According to me, Complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings which is reasonable. So the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
10.Point No.2:- Since I found point No.1 as discussed above, the complainant is entitled to get ticket fare, compensation and cost.
In the result the Complaint is allowed partly. The Opposite Parties are jointly directed to give Rs.1,316/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Sixteen) to the complainant with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from 30.08.2017 till realization. They are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay the above said amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order.
-11-
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of January 2020.
Date of Filing: 11.10.2017
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Prakash. Government Servant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. K. S. Vijayan. Inspector, KSRTC.
OPW2. Joshy John. DTO.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of E-Ticket. Dt:30.08.2017.
A2. Copy of Ticket of Karnataka SRTC. Dt:10.09.2017.
A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:20.09.2017.
A4(Series). Postal Receipts (2 Nos).
-12-
A5 (Series). Acknowledgment Cards (2 Nos).
X1. Copy of Enquiry Report. Dt:19.11.2017.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.