Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/119/2018

S.Kavitha S/o.R.Sampathkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director State Express Transport corporation - Opp.Party(s)

L.P.Balaji Ram

20 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on :23.08.2018

                                                               Order pronounced on:  20.03.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 20^th  DAY OF MARCH  2020

 

C.C.NO.119/2018

 

S.Kanitha,

W/o. R.Sampath Kumar,

New No.2, Old No.6,

Mangaliamman Koil Street,

Aminjikarai,

Chennai – 600 029.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

 

The Managing Director,

Represented  for

State Express Transport Corporation,

Thiruvallur House,

Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                          : Mr.L.P.Balajiram

 

Counsel for   opposite party                        : M/s. T.Natarajan

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

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

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant’s husband had booked  ticket for 3 passengers through online for a sum of Rs.1,262/- with the opposite party transport corporation on 24.05.2018 for travell from Chennai to Trichy vide ticket bearing PNR No. T24932309 and Bus Route No.123 AC and Bus ID No.2553 for journey dated 26.05.2018 departing at 23.00 hrs from Chennai CMBT. On 26.05.2018 the complainant  travelled in the bus along with her son and daughter. On verification of the ticket the bus conductor insisted full ticket for  her son who is only 11 years old boy. The bus conductor demanded the complainant to pay an extra ticket amount of Rs.230/-. The complainant told that her son is only 11 years old and hence he is eligible for half ticket. Immediately the conductor raised an objection stating that  the height of the boy was above 130 cms.  As per the online booking ticket rules, only half ticket is eligible for children between 3 to 12 years and above 130 cms. Height above 130 cms will be charged full fare unless original age proof  certificate is produced at the time of journey. The complainant’s son is only 11 years old and therefore the complainant had shown her son’s birth certificate. But the bus conductor did not accept the same and directed to pay the full ticket balance amount of Rs.230/-. The complainant had paid the full ticket balance amount of Rs.230/- and obtained ticket from the bus conductor. On 28.05.2018 the complainant, her son and daughter returned from Trichy to Chennai. For the return journey her husband booked a ticket through online on 24.05.2018 for an amount of Rs.1,262/- by the PNR No.T 24931675 by bus I.D No.E 4259  and route No.123 AC leaving at 22.30 hrs from Trichy. On return journey from Trichy to Chennai the bus conductor did not raise any objection with regard to her son’s height and  accepted the birth certificate. He did not demand to pay the full ticket amount. Therefore this is very clear that the bus conductor in route No.123AC from Chennai CMBT to Trichy is involved in deficiency in service and violated the rules and regulations of the online ticket reservation system. Hence this complaint.  

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          As per the Circular bearing No.0010/E3/A.Trans/90 dated 03.03.1999, for children aged between 3 and 12 years, only half ticket value is levied. Further if the height of the child is above 130 cms, he/she will be charged for full ticket. If the passenger shows the birth certificate and the child’s age is within 12 years, then half ticket fare is alone charged. In the absence of not producing the birth certificate and if the height of the child is above 130 cms, then full ticket fare for the child will be charged. The complainant travelled along with her son and daughter from Chennai to Trichy in the bus belonging to the opposite party. The payment for tickets were two full charge tickets and half ticket charge for the minor was booked through on line. The conductor found that the minor child was above 130cms and hence full ticket charge was demanded from the complainant. The complainant did not produce any ‘birth certificate’ to prove that the child was below 12 years. The complainant while returning from Trichy to Chennai, diligently produced the birth certificate of her son and therefore she was not demanded full ticket charge for the boy. So the contention of the complainant is that while return journey the conductor did not raise any objection with regard to height and age of the boy is justified as the complainant produced the birth certificate for the boy. So, the plea of the complainant is that the bus conductor in route No.123AC  from Chennai CMBT to Trichy has committed deficiency in service by demanding additional half charge for the ticket for the minor boy is not sustainable both on legal and factual aspects. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant’s husband had booked for 3 passengers through online for a sum of Rs.1,262/- with  opposite party  Transport Corporation on 24.05.2018 to travel from Chennai to Trichy vide ticket bearing PNR No.T 24931309 in the Bus route No.123 AC for the journey dated 26.05.2018 departing at 23.00 hrs at Chennai CMBT vide Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the birth certificate of the complainant’s son S.Harshith Kumar who accompanied the complainant  and her daughter Srivarshini.  The case of the complainant is that half ticket taken for her son for the travel from Chennai to Trichy (Ex.A3) was suspected by the conductor in view of the height of the boy above 130cms and she was asked to pay rest of extra amount for half ticket i.e. Rs.230/-.  Thereafter it was  paid by the complainant vide Ex.A4 receipt. The complainant alleges that inspite  of  production of the birth certificate on the spot, she was charged the  rest of the half ticket whereas she was allowed to travel with half ticket for her son in the return journey from Trichy to Chennai.

 05. The opposite party would contend that the complainant had not produced the birth certificate of her son inspite of the conductor’s request and not even inclined to produce the birth certificate through what’s app which resulted in charging her the remaining half ticket.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite party in Ex.A5 and its acknowledgement  is Ex.A6. Circular No. 0010/E3/A.V.Trans/90 is filed as Ex.B1 on the side of the opposite party which explains about the rules as to collection of half ticket for the children between the age of 3 to 12 and more than the height of 130cms.  It also reads that in case of dispute it should be finalised subject to the production of the birth certificate.

           06. There was a reply in Ex.B6 for the legal notice issued by the complainant. The only allegation by the complainant in this case is that she was charged with Rs.230/- being the amount for rest of half ticket for her son inspite of  production of his birth certificate to the concerned conductor which amounts to deficiency in service and also had caused her mental agony and stress. Hence the complainant claimed for the refund of Rs.230/- and also compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

07. The production of birth certificate during the journey by the complainant is denied by the opposite party. The production of birth certificate and its denial by the conductor concerned is not substantiated by any proof by the complainant.  In such situation the complainant had the opportunity of getting the endorsement for the rejection in the alleged birth certificate itself or else to gain the witnesses from the neighbouring traveller but nothing was followed by the complainant. While the matter being so the contention of the opposite party and also the explanation submitted by the concerned conductor to the executive director in Ex.B4 is to be accepted as true. Therefore as per the rules of the opposite party the conductor  was justified in collecting the balance ticket fare in  this issue. Under these circumstances it is presumed that the complainant would have been vigilant in producing the birth certificate or copy of it through some mode while returning from Trichy to Chennai and therefore she was not demanded full ticket for her son and the age of the boy was justified. Hence the allegation against the opposite party that the bus conductor in route 123 AC Chennai CMBT to Trichy has committed deficiency in service by demanding additional half charge for the ticket for the minor boy is not sustainable.

08. POINT NO.2:

 In view of the discussions as held above, the complainant is not entitled to for any relief and the compliant deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly it is dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th  day of March 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.07.2007                   Birth Certificate of the complainant’s son

Ex.A2 dated 24.05.2018                   Online reservation ticket from Chennai to Trichy

Ex.A3 dated 24.05.2018                   Online  reservation ticket from Trichy to Chennai

Ex,A4 dated 26.05.2018                   Copy of the excess ticket collected by the bus

                                                    Conductor

 

Ex.A5 dated 08.06.2018          Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 11.06.2018          Acknowledgement card of the legal notice

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE    OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated 03.03.1999                   Circular bearing No.0010/E3/A.V.Trans/90

 

Ex.B2 dated 26.05.2018                   Print out of the journey bill

 

Ex.B3 dated 26.05.2018                   Trip Sheet

 

Ex.B4 dated  30.06.2018                  Conductor’s explanation to management

 

Ex.B5 dated 26.05.2018                   Receipt for deposit of collection

 

Ex.B6 dated 28.12.2018                   opposite party’s reply to legal notice

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT