Kerala

Idukki

CC/15/311

Mr.Vincent Chacko - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director K S R T C - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.V A Biju

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
IDUKKI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/311
( Date of Filing : 09 Nov 2015 )
 
1. Mr.Vincent Chacko
Kochupurackal Nediyasala Thodupuzha
Idukki
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Managing Director K S R T C
Trivandrum
Idukki
Kerala
2. The Asst Transport Officer
KSRTC Pala
Idukki
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S Gopakumar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Benny K MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 30 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement
DATE OF FILING : 9.11.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the  30th  day of  June, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.311/2015
Between
Complainants       :  1.   Vincent Chacko,
     Kodiyamaanaan,
     Nediyashala P.O.,
     Thodupuzha, Idukki. 
2.  Tito George, S/o. George,
     Kochupurackal House,
     Karimkunna P.O.,
     Nellappara, Thodupuzha, Idukki.
    (Both by Adv:  V.A.Biju)
And
Opposite Parties                                          :  1.  The Managing Director,
      Kerala State Transport Corporation,
      Thiruvananthapuram. 
2.  The Assistant Transport Officer,
      Kerala State Transport Corporation,
      Pala, Kottayam.
      (By Adv: Ambili U.)
 
O R D E R
 
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
 
          Complainants are reserved two tickets to Mysore through e-ticketing on 12.10.2015, scheduled to be travelled on 14.10.2015 by paying Rs.988/- to the 2nd complainant’s account No.116201507410 of ICICI Bank.  Complainants arrived the boarding point at Pala at 8.30 pm on 14.10.2015.  But the bus which was to be started at 9 pm, stopped that day’s service unreasonably.  The said bus arrived only at 11.30 pm and announced the cancellation of the service.  The 2nd complainant had to attend an interview on next day at 9.30 am at Mysore.  The cancellation of the service by opposite parties after receiving advance amount, compelled the complainants to hire a car to Mysore.  Complainant had to spend 
   (cont.....2)
-  2  -
Rs.13500/- in this regard.  Even after repeated requests, opposite parties are never ready to return the advance amount of Rs.988/- to the complainants.  The act of the opposite parties had caused much financial, mental hardships to the complainants.  Opposite parties are liable to compensate the same.
          Opposite parties filed written version and denied all allegations of the petitioner.  The 2nd opposite party had already intimated to the EDPC about the non-availability of vehicle to Bangalore on 14.10.2015 and 16.10.2015.  Hence the reservation details and confirmation to be proved by the petitioners.  The said vehicle was cancelled due to mechanical complaints and vehicle No.RSC 778 (KL-15A-268) KSRTC bus was the one for the said route on 14.10.2015.  It was also averred that the notice regarding the cancellation of the bus was affixed in the notice board of the KSRTC station, Pala and also announcement regarding the same was made several times after 7.30 pm on 14.10.2015 and 16.10.2015.  Hence the allegation of the complainant that they had reached the place before boarding time and came to know about the cancellation of the said bus only on enquiry at 11.30 pm is not at all sustainable.  No such enquiry was done.  The statement that complainant had to attend an interview and the hiring of a taxi to Mysore also denied.  If so, complainant had cited the name of the office or call letter and the details regarding the taxi.  Petitioner have never approached opposite party for refund of ticket amount and opposite party is ready to repay the same after deducting the service charge.  Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation and petition may be dismissed.
          Oral and documentary evidence produced by both parties.  Exts.P1 and Ext.R1 marked from the side of complainant and opposite party respectively.
          The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to  ?
Heard both sides.
           The POINT :-  Second complainant examined as PW1.  1st and 2nd complainant jointly filed this petition regarding the deficiency in service from the part of opposite party in cancelling the bus service to Mysore in which they had  reserved  seats  for  Mysore  in  order to attend an interview.   Copy  of  the 
      (cont.....3)
-  3  -
reservation ticket marked as Ext.P1.  complainant argues that they had arrived the boarding station at 8.30 pm on the day and the bus to be started at 9 pm from there had not arrive even at 11.30 pm.  On enquiry, it was learned that the said bus was cancelled.  2nd complainant had to attend an interview at Mysore on the next day at 9.30 am.  They could do nothing but to hire a taxi to Mysore and the act of opposite party had caused much financial loss and mental and physical agony to the complainants.
          2nd opposite party examined as DW1.  Opposite party denied all allegations of the complainants.  Opposite party averred that the said bus was cancelled due to mechanical problems and the matter was stated in the notice board of the boarding station,  in advance, that is, from 7.30 pm onwards and announcements were also made.  Allegation of the complainant that they had reached the boarding station at 8.30 pm on that day is hence denied.  Opposite party again contended that complainant had not produced any evidence regarding the said interview at Mysore.
          We had gone through the evidence on record and deposition of the witness carefully.  It is admitted that the complainant reserved seat for his journey to Mysore with the KSRTC depot, Pala and later on the trip cancelled.  The pertinent question arises here is that whether the opposite parties intimated their passengers, who reserved their seats, properly.  At this juncture, it is necessary to go through the depositions of the witness.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  In his deposition, he specifically stated that due to the irresponsible act of the opposite parties in cancelling their trip to Mysore, the complainant forced to hire a taxi in order to attend an interview in Mysore, in the midnight of 14.10.2015 and happened to spent an amount of Rs.13,500/- as taxi charges.  He further added that one Sujith was the taxi driver and Register number of the taxi car was KL-38-9774.  To counter this claim of the witness opposite party produced the vehicle details of the alleged taxi and marked it as Ext.R1(series).  By perusing this document (registration particulars of vehicle No.KL-38-9774),  we came to know that, it is a private vehicle, not a taxi as deposed by the witness.  Eventhough the complainant had not produced any incriminating evidence to show that he hired a taxi vehicle on 14.10.2015, for attending  the  interview  at  Mysore and unfortunately incurred an expense of 
  (cont.....4)
-  4  -
Rs.13,500/- as taxi charges, due to the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties, opposite parties cannot run away from their liability.  The fact of the reservation from the side of the complainant and the cencellation of the KSRTC bus trip from Pala to Mysore is proved beyond any doubt.  It is to be found out that, whether the opposite parties performed obligation to their passengers and extended their service to their passengers.  Here it is proved that, the opposite parties not intimated the complainant through any medium regarding the cancellation of the trip to Mysore.  No evidence is produced by the opposite party.  Hence the non-intimation of a cancellation of a trip, especially a long trip, to their reserved passengers is a clear deficiency in their service.  No doubt, it caused much mental and physical stress and financial damages to the complainant.  Without sufficient material evidence, the Forum is not in a position to grant taxi charges as prayed for.
Hence the complaint allowed in part.  The Forum directs the opposite parties to return the booking charge at the rate of Rs.988.00/- to the complainant and in addition to it, the Forum directs the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly, to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount stated above in three heads shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date  of default, till its realisation.
 
      Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2017
 
     Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
 
     Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER      
 
(cont.....4)
-  4  -
 
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1              -  Titto George.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1              -  E.J. Varghese.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1            -  Copy of reservation ticket.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1(series) -  Registration details of the vehicle.  
Ext.R2             -  Copy of complaint register of KSRTC Pala Depo.
 
 
 
          Forwarded by Order,
 
 
 
           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S Gopakumar]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Benny K]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.