Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund the excess amount ` 1,360 collected from the complainant together with `10,000 as compensation and cost.  

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows.  Complainant and his friend Sri. V. Murugan travelled by the KSRTC Super Express Bus from Madhurai to Kannur.  They were lawfully conveying 15 units of luggage with luggage ticket 0014666 of fare paid `1904. The article were plastic toys, wooden chapathi boards and rulers, and low class plastic utensils for street selling.  As per the luggage rules of KSRTC, they were entitled to carry 450 Kgs luggage including 30 Kgs of free allowances for `1904.  Eventhough the articles were weighed only 150 Kgs the conductor levied as per volume of the bundles.  At Gopalapuram check post, three inspectors were boarded and demanded the complainant to pay more fare for the luggage. When the bus reached at Palakkad he asked them to weigh the luggage or measure the luggage articles to ascertain the actual weight.   But they threatened him that the article would be thrown out if 12 units luggage fare more if not paid.   In order to avoid untoward situation he paid amount and inspectors issued 10 units of fare `1360.  Complaint was lodged before M.D. but in vain.  Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version disputing the allegations of the complaint. The brief is as follows:  It is true that the Inspectors boarded in the bus for inspection and found that large volume of space is being occupied in the bus on account of carrying his luggage.  Large volume of luggage created pressure on the passengers travelling in the bus due to it occupying substantial spaces created space problem.  Hence it was necessitated to charge luggage on its volume also apart from the weight.  As per manual luggage charge can be levied on weight or volume (`7,500 cubic meter = 1 Kg) which is more beneficial to the KSRTC.  In express, Super fast, Fast passenger buses the maximum weight one passenger can carry is 100 Kg out of which 15 Kg of luggage can be carried free for one passenger.  In this case it was found an additional 10 units charge has to be paid.  So there is no irregularity or illegality in demanding additional charge of `1,360.   The inspectors found that the said luggage would be equivalent to 750 Kg corresponding to 24 units charge.  Even otherwise it is found by the inspectors that the weight for luggage would be 750 Kg actually.  There is no deficiency of service on unfair trade practice.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

3.     Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 to B4.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant was a passenger in KSRTC Super Express bus from Madurai to Kannur.  The dispute arosed upon the weight and far of the bus. The conductor of the bus issued luggage ticket for a fare of `1904.  But when the inspectors boarded they demand complainant to pay more fare for the luggage saying the reason that large volume of space is being occupied in the bus on account of carrying his luggage. 

          Complainant alleges that the inspectors threatened him that the articles would be thrown out if 12 units luggage fare more if not paid whereby he compelled to pay `1,360 as excess fare of 10 units.  Opposite party contended that since the luggage occupied substantial space in the bus there arosed space problem and created pressure on the travelling passenger which necessitated to charge luggage on its volume also apart from the weight.  Complainant also alleged that though he demanded to weigh the luggage to ascertain the weight when the bus parked in Palakkad stand, the inspectors threatened him telling that the articles would be thrown out and thus excess fare paid out of compulsion.  Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit that he was a head load seller of plastic toys and low cost utensils at Kannur and he together with his friend Sri. V. Murugan travelled by the Madurai-Kannur Super Express bus. They had carried 15 units of luggage lawfully paying the required fare and valid tickets issued by the duty conductor.  The articles were chapathi boards and rulers, and low cost utensils for street selling.  The complainant further states that even though the articles were weighed only 150 Kg the conductor levied 1904 equal to 420 Kg as per the volume occupied by the light weight articles.  They were lawfully entitled for 30 Kgs more as free allowance.  The checking inspectors demanded more fare from complainant without ascertaining the weight of the luggage .  The luggage were placed in the tool box, in open space near the bonet and the luggage carrier upon he bus safely without causing any inconvenience.

          In cross examination complainant deposed that he is selling toys and light-house hold articles.  Articles are brought from Madurai placing it on tool box, open space of bonet.  It has also denied that he has brought 24 units of luggage and it is not correct to say that extra luggage fare levied since he brought 10 units extra luggage.  It is also stated that 1 unit means 30 Kg. For a separate question in cross, complainant answered that he brought 130 Kg from Madurai.   It was measured as 130 Kg and the same is only 4 units.

          Ext.B1 is the Government order dated 15.12.2010 approving of Manual of KSRTC.  Ext.B2 shows the rate of luggage etc.  Ext.B2 shows that the charge for luggage can be levied on the basis of weight as well as upon the volume whichever is more beneficial to KSRTC. It was also stated that in Express, Superfast, Fast passenger buses, the maximum weight one passenger can carry is 100 Kg and 15 Kg of luggage can be carried free for one passenger.  The inspectors herein found the alleged luggage of complainant and his friend could be equivalent to 750 Kg corresponding to 24 units charge.  Complainants case is that they conveyed only 130 Kg and they are entitled to carry 450 Kgs. 

          Ext.B2 is the statement of Sri. P.M. Mohandas, who is one of the inspectors.  As per the statement it was estimated 150 cubic Feet volume and found weight as per rules 150X3.4 Kg= 510 Kg for plastic and light items and articles which are of heavy weight ‘cheenachatti’, ‘dosakallu and other heavy house hold articles which were kept inside the bus estimated to be 250 Kg.

          Ext.B4 is the KSRTC Surprise Squard Report.  The report goes to show that the bus were taken in a different rout in order to escape from certain check post so as to avoid sales tax on the excess luggage.  Actually the correct rout to the bus was Coimbatore to Valayar but it was gone via Pollachi, Gopalapuram.  The squard found this change was taken place due to mal intention to appropriate profit share out of luggage fare.

          On perusal of Ext.B4 it could be seen the statement of               Sri. C. Arumukan OD Station Master, Statement of Sri. M. Krishnakumar Duty Inspector, Traffic Control, Palakkad Unit, statement of Sri. Abdul Azeez, Security Guard, Palakkad unit etc all of those who are seen categorically stated that they were witnessed the conducting of the inspection.  It can also be seen that the order of the Chief Law Officer in charge of Executive Director (Vigilence) suspending the conductor and driver of the bus on the basis of the findings of the report of Surprise Squard.  Levying of less rate charge on luggages found as an important ground for taking this action.  Ext.B4 reveals that the corporation has taken disciplinary action against the employees upon a proper investigation.  It is not as a result of merely an all on a sudden action.   Hence there is nothing wrong to believe that there were excess load luggage there in the bus without sufficient rate of fare.

          The facts and circumstances of the case does not permit to find fault with the opposite party in charging additional fare from the complainant for the luggages.  Complainant could not prove his allegations and it is difficult to cast deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.   Hence w find issues No.1 to 3 against complainant.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed.

          No cost.

                         Sd/-                      Sd/-                     Sd/- 

President              Member               Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Original tickets ( 3 in numbers)           

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Govt. order dated 15.12.2010 having No.572/10. 

B2.  Copy of the KSRTC Manual.

B3.   Report of the Inspector dated 02.08.11.

B4.   KSRTC - Surprise Squad report dated 21.04.2011 and annexures.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.   Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  K.R. Sivan

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT