By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- While the daughter of the Complainant was studying in Government Medical College Parippally, in order to appear for the examination held at Kollam on 22/10/2018, the Complainant had booked a seat from sulthan Bathery for his daughter to travel from Sulthan Bathery to Kollam on 21.10.2018 in Scania bus of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party collected Rs.378/- from Complainant as ticket charge. But on the same day at 1.30 p.m, the Complainant got a call from Banglore office of KSRTC that the bus trip has been cancelled and hence the ticket is being cancelled. As no message was received to the mobile phone of the Complainant regarding the cancellation, Immediately, the Complainant reached the KSRTC office at Sulthan Bathery depot and enquired about the matter and the Complainant was told that they were not aware of the cancellation of the bus ticket and when the Complainant contacted the Thiruvanananthapuram office of KSRTC, they also said that they were not aware of the cancellation of the bus trip. The Complainant requested to book a seat in any other bus on that route at Bathery KSRTC office, but they were not ready do so. On further enquiry, the Complainant got reply that bus seat would be made available if the Complainant reaches Thrissur KSRTC office before 7.30 p.m., The Complainant had to reach Thrissur only after travelling for at least 6 hours from Sulthan Bathery. If the Complainant leave Bathery at 2.30 p.m. So, the Complainant could not have reached Thrissur at 7.30 p.m for any reason. According to the Complainant, if he was at least informed about the cancelation of the bus trip that morning, the Complainant could have found some other way. Then till 9.30 p.m. the Complainant and his daughter searched for seat availability in KSRTC bus but they didn’t get any seat. It is stated that the Complainant hired a taxi from Sulthan Bathery and went to Kollam due to the urgent need of his daughter to reach the next morning, incurring a sum of Rs.14,100/-as fare. The cause of such financial loss and mental stress is the serious lapse on the part of Opposite Party. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, he filed this Complaint praying the Commission to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
3. On receipt of the Complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party appeared before the Commission and filed version. In the version, the Opposite Party stated that the Complainant has not alleged in the Complaint that the Complainant had booked ticket for the Complainant to travel in the vehicle belonging to Opposite Party operating the public transport service, so the Complainant is not customer of the Opposite Party. There is no mention in the Complaint that the said customer used the Opposite Party’s service. The Complainant has not produced the legal documents on behalf of the daughter for filing the Complaint before the Commission. Therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable. For implementation of Web based Online Passenger Reservation of tickets KSRTC had entered into an inter- party agreement with M/S Radiant Info Systems Ltd 2227/1, division No. 52 A, 9th main Banashakari ll stage, Banglore with effect from 21.10.2018, where it is said that the Complainant’s daughter had booked the ticket. According to the KSRTC, the company was responsible for the development and operation of online portal and application software for booking, cancellation, renewal and other information of tickets through internet and mobile online application. As per clause 6.6 of the agreement, it was the duty of Radiant company to provide SMS facility and cancellation information. In order to prove that the name of the Complainant’s daughter is included in the reservation chart as alleged in the Complaint, the information about the cancellation of the service was informed through SMS. To prove that it was communicated through SMS and since the responsible party is M/S Radiant Info systems Ltd., The company should have been made a party to the Complaint. In this way the essential party is not added as a party, so the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. Scania bus which was operated under the responsibility of Opposite Party, The allegation of the Complainant that under Trip code No. 1415 BNGTVM had reserved a ticket and Rs. 378 had been collected as ticket charge etc. are not true and have been added fraudulently for the purpose of the Complaint.
4. On continuation trip of Thiruvananthapuram- Banglore service which left Thiruvananthapuram Central depot at 17.00 hours on 20.10.2018 was to be operated on 20.10.2018 at 14.15 Banglore - Thiruvananthapuram service. The bonnet No. given as TL-6 was serviced by M/S Maha Voyage LLP- for KSRTC on wet lease basis, the said trip was operated in Scania Bus No.KL01/CD-5469. But, the said bus broke down at Kozhikode during the trip to Banglore and the passengers to Banglore were taken by another AC bus departing from Kozhikode. The service to Banglore –Thiruvananthapuram service at 14.15 had been cancelled as there was no bus of the same type to run the service to Thiruvananthapuram and this information has been given by SMS through phone. The Complainant admits that he was informed about the cancellation of the service by phone at 1.30 p.m. The allegation of the Complainant that he was not informed about the cancellation of the trip can be seen false as the Complainant has produced the copy of the SMS.
5. The notice of cancellation had been given to the Complainant’s daughter as soon as possible. The statement that the Complainant and daughter waited till 9.30 for any other bus is denied by the Opposite Party as false. According to the Opposite Party, buses were running in abundance to the district centres and other important places in Kerala. As per the agreement entered between Opposite Party and M/s. Maha Voyage LLP on 15/09/2017, the company shall bear the liabilities arising in the Consumer Court or other courts due to the Maha Voyage or the driver during the contract period due to their negligence. M/s. Maha Voyage is the registered owner of the bus whose ticket was booked by the Complainant’s daughter and their bus was broke down. So, according to the Opposite Party, M/s. Maha Voyage shall bear the liability. The Opposite Party denying deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the Complainant, he filed affidavit and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The Opposite Party also produced documents and which were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. The Complainant is examined as PW1 and another witness examined as PW2 from the side of the Complainant to prove his case. From the side of the Opposite Party Cluster Officer (Assistant Transport Officer) examined as OPW1.
7. The main points to be answered are
(1). Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service?
(2). If so, relief and cost.
8. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that he had reserved ticket from Opposite Party from Sulthan Bathery to Kollam. Opposite Party collected the ticket charges from the Complainant. The purpose of the journey was to attend an examination on 22.10.2018. Complainant’s daughter reached the KSRTC bus stand Sulthan Bathery in time and waited for the bus. It is not in dispute that Complainant had booked a ticket on 21.10.2018. Only grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party without any information cancelled the scheduled bus. According to the Complainant, his daughter had to attend examination on 22/10/2018 at Kollam. He had to hire taxi by paying Rs.14,000/-. He and his daughter had to undergo mental pain, harassment etc. besides monetary loss of Rs.14,000. Opposite Party failed to provide required services to them which amount to deficiency in service.
9. Here the Complainant received SMS on 21/10/2018 ksrtc-m=Ticket (Service Cancelled) as found in Ext.A1. Due to the cancellation of bus ticket, the Complainant had travelled in taxi at his own cost as found in Ext.A2. So the Complainant would have undergone great hardship and monetary loss in making alternative arrangements for engaging a taxi. It is further observed that the evidence of taxi driver PW2 about the trip undertaken for the Complainant to Kollam and the receipt Ext.A3 produced in support of the same, does not create any doubt and further no material evidence has been elucidated from the cross examination of PW2 by Opposite Party to discredit the evidence of PW2. Even though the Opposite Party submitted about the agreement with Radiant Info System and lease agreement with M/S. Maha Voyage, nothing is produced to show that they were entered into an agreement with those companies. So, we are of the opinion that the defence taken by the Opposite Party is just to escape from their liability. It was their duty to provide service to the Complainant as assured as per scheduled time, but they could not provide. This constituted deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. In this context it is held that the Complainant has proved his case and entitled for the reliefs sought for.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the Complainant Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) being the taxi charge, Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards compensation and Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Only) towards cost of the proceedings. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 9th day of October 2023.
Date of Filing:-24.09.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Manoj. K. D. Government Employee.
PW2. Robin. K. K. Driver.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Prashob. P. K. Assistant Transport Officer, KSRTC.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Printout of Trip Cancellation Message.
A2. Tourist Taxi Receipt. Dt:21.10.2018.
A3. Copy of Letter sent to The Managing Director, KSRTC,
Thiruvananthapuram. Dt:07.11.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Authorization Letter. Dt:12.06.2023.
B2. Terms and conditions of ticket booking in KSRTC.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
