This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on  09.07.2015  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru.M.Karikalan, the counsel for the complainant and  Thiru. K.Selvaraj,  the counsel for the  opposite parties  and  having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following     

By President, Thiru..P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2) The gist of the  complaint filed  by the complainant  is that  when he was  traveling in the first opposite party’s bus bearing  registration No. TN 55 N 0370 plying from Keeranur to Senkipatti along with his daughter Tamilselvi who was studying  at Mother Theresa College, Illupur on 30.08.2011 at 7.30 P.M. at about 8.30 P.M   the bus had broken  down near Kundrandarkoil   all the  passengers were alighted  from the bus as it  was said to have been broken up  and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties  the driver and conductor respectively of the bus  irresponsibly asked the complainant to go to their own place of their  accord and they could not do anything for further traveling to reach his house.  When  requested  by the  complainant  the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties  refused to arrange  for alternative vehicle for further traveling  and also to refund  the ticket charges.  It is sheer deficiency of service on their part.  The complainant  during the night hours along with his daughter had suffered  much undergone great mental agony and  reached the house by getting  a  lift in another person’s two wheeler who had prior acquaintance  with them.  For the  complaint sent to the first opposite party under registered post with acknowledgement due  no action had been taken by the first opposite party.  The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the  opposite parties to pay  Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant  towards  compensation for the  mental  agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to him owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.

3) The gist of the written version filed  by the  first opposite party is that when the  bus bearing registration No. TN55/N0370 had broken  down in the mid-way  near Kundrandarkoil   on 30.08.2012 all the passengers were  sent  through  another bus which came  on that route.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties had not  behaved  irresponsibily  as alleged by the complainant.  Further  the tickets produced  by the complainant along with the complaint bearing No. 58287, 58288 belong to a different route  and it is not relating to Keeranur to Achampatti route.  The complainant is a speculative one and there is no bonofide on the part of the complainant.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4) The gist of the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party the driver of the bus is that he was working in a different bus plying in the same route and there is no bonofide in the complaint filed by the complainant which is liable to be dismissed.

5) The gist of the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is that he was discharging his duty as the conductor in a different bus plying in the same route and there is no bonofide in the complaint filed by the complainant which is liable to be dismissed.

6) The  complainant  has filed his proof affidavit  reiterating  all the averments made in his complaint and filed  8 documents  which are marked as Ex.A.1 to  Ex.A.8.  The first opposite party filed his proof affidavit  adopted by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties  in support of his defence and filed two documents which are marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.  Written arguments have been submitted by both the sides.

7)   The points for Determination are:

                     1) Whether there is  any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

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

8) POINT  NO.1:  The main allegation of the  complainant is that  himself  and along with his daughter Tamilselvi who was studying  at Mother Theresa College, Illupur was  traveling  in the bus bearing registration No.  TN 55 N 0370  plying from  Keeranur to Senkipatti to go home  and at about 8.00 P.M  near Kundrandarkoil  all the passengers were asked to get down from the bus  as it was said to have broken down and no alternative vehicle was arranged for further traveling.  When the complainant  along  with his daughter in the  midst  of their journey during night hours,  when requested the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties  to arrange for alternative vehicle for their further conveyance  they have irresponsibly told  them that they can go  to Kandarvakottai and  from there to  their  village.  They also refused  to return the bus fare  collected from the complainant.  It is sheer  deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties  as they, having collected  the bus fare from the passengers  are bound to arrange for  further traveling of passengers through another alternative bus. 

9) The complainant  has filed  Ex.A.1  the two tickets purchased by him for himself and his daughter  to travel in the bus.  Ex.A.2 is the copy of the complaint sent by the complainant to the first opposite party to take action against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Ex.A.3 is the xerox copy of  the postal  receipt for having  sent  the complaint  to the first opposite party.  Ex.A.4 is the  postal acknowledgement card  of the first opposite party.  Ex.A.5 is the  copy of the information furnished by the General Manager of the Commercial Division of Tamil Nadu Transport  Corporation, Kumbakonam Ltd of  Pudukkottai region to the complainant under the Right to Information Act.  Ex.A.6 is the  acknowledgement card of the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A.7  is the  xerox copy of the transfer certificate of the  complainant’s daughter.  

10) The main defence of the first opposite party   as per his written version is that  when the  bus TN.55 N 0370 had  a  break down on 30.08.2011 near Kundrandarkoil all the passengers  in that bus were sent through another bus and there is no deficiency of service on  their part.  The complainant did not ask for the  refund  of the bus  fare.  Further  the tickets  produced by them  relate to another route and it is not relating to the bus route from Keeranur to Achampatti .  The only defence of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties  is that they  were not discharging  their duty in the bus  referred in the complaint  but they were working in a different bus plying in the same route.

11)  There is neither genuineness nor even probability in the defence version of the opposite parties. In the written version the first opposite party  has taken a stand that all the passengers who travelled in TN 55 N 0370 were sent in another bus as the said bus had a break down  near Kundrandarkoil.  But he has not disclosed in which bus the said passengers boarded and travelled for the remaining distance.  Further, the 2^nd  and 3^rd opposite parties, the driver  and  the conductor of the bus have stoutly denied their discharging their duty in the bus bearing registration No. TN 55 N 0370 in which the complainant and his  daughter travelled;  but they have  claimed to have, worked in a different bus  on that  day but in the same route.  They also have not taken care to mention the registration number of the  bus in which  they were alleged to have actually  worked on the day.  Further  no documentary  evidence is filed to substantiate  their version  along with their  proof affidavit.  The first opposite party has filed the invoices dated  30.08.2011 relating to the routes K.10 and K.11 and has  contented  that Ex.A.1 series the two tickets  are not relating to K.11  route  but it is  actually  relating to K.10 route and therefore  those tickets  are not issued to the complainant and his daughter  and they have not  travelled in the bus alleged in their complaint.  The said contention is not  at all acceptable for the reason that neither  of the 2^nd  and 3^rd opposite parties has mentioned in the written version in which  bus they were discharging their duty  as   driver and conductor.  If they were not discharging their duty  in TN 55 N 0370  bus  they might  have very well mentioned  the registration number of the bus in which they were  working on 30.08.2011 during the night hours. It is pertinent  to note that  the complainant  has impleaded the 2^nd and  3^rd opposite parties only based on Ex.A.5,  the information furnished by the office of the General Manager of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Limited of Pudukkottai Region wherein the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are noted to have worked as  driver and conductor respectively on 30.08.2011 in the bus TN 55 N 0370.  

12) The contention of the first opposite party   that Ex.A.1  tickets relate to the route K.11 and not  to  K.10 is also  not a material point to substantiate their defence since, only the route numbers and not the bus numbers plied in the route on the day is not  noted in the said invoices.  It is also pertinent to note that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have taken the stand that they discharge their duty  in a different bus  but plying in the same route as the said bus TN 55 N 0370  plied on that day.  A news column   in  Dinakaran dated 14.11.2014  is filed as Ex.A.8 on the side of the complainant to establish  his version that the Branch Managers of the Transport  Corporations are  often  accustomed  to file fake  reports to the Government  and to prove that already two branch managers of the transport corporations were  also  suspended  for submission of said fake reports. In such circumstances this Forum does not find any genuineness and bonafide in the defence  taken by the opposite parties and  the complainant’s allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties  stand proved.  

3) POINT NO.2:-  In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part and the  opposite parties are  directed to pay jointly or severally  the sum of  Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant   towards  compensation  for the mental agony, inconvenience  and hardship caused to himself and his daughter  owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties  are also directed to pay the   compensation amount   to the complainant  within 45 days  from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry  an interest at the rate of 12% per annum  from the date of this order till the date of its payment.  

                This order was dictated by me to the Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this 16th day of July 2015.

MEMBER -I                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents on the side of the complainant:-

List of documents on the side of the   Opposite parties :