Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

407/2010

Abdul Ajeez - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, State Transport Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Ratio Legis

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 19.10.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 25.02.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.407/2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

                                 

A. Abdul Ajeez,

S/o. Mr. Abdul Majeed,

No.114, 4^th Cross Street,

Sabari Nagar,

Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                

                                                                                                ..Versus..

The Managing Director / Special Officer,

State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd.,

Pallavan Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for the complainant     :  M/s. RATIO LEGIS

Counsel for the opposite party :  M/s. Jayesh B. Dolia & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund the ticket value of Rs.405/- for the seat Nos.41,42, 43 of the Ticket AX 336627 and Rs.75/- for the seat No.44 of the ticket AX 336628 with necessary interest admissible at Government rate at present, to provide for re-imbursement of the medical expenses incurred around Rs.1,500/- by the complainant for recovering from the leg pain and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental sufferings and hardships suffered by the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he booked 9 tickets, in (TNSTC) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus on 18.05.2010 at 20 hours seat Nos. namely 36 to 44 were reserved vide Ticket Nos. AX 3366277 and AX 336628 in route No. 335 for performing journey on 21.05.2010 from Chennai CMBT to Vedaranyam to attend an important marriage function.  The complainant submits that while boarding the bus, the complainant and his family members were not able to occupy the seats allotted to them since the seats available in the bus were restricted to 40.   Thereby, the complainant was constrained to travel from Chennai to Vedaranyam by standing nearly 350 kms.   The complainant submits that he is a chronic diabetic patient.   Due to over strain, hardship and mental stress, the complainant was compelled to undergo medical treatment expended a sum of Rs.1,500/-. The complainant submits that as per the journey bills, the opposite party advance booked for 45 passengers.  Out of which, 37 adults and 4 children were boarded in the bus for travel.  Evenafter repeated requests, the conductor of the bus denied seat to the complainant.  On the other hand, the conductor of the bus permitted to travel 3 fresh passengers by seating arrangement.  The complainant submits that he is a senior citizen practicing as an Advocate was humiliated by the conductor of the bus Thiru. Manikandan employee No.34011, driver Mr. Muthuraja employee No. 34627 in such manner caused severe mental pain.  The unparliamentarily words used by the employees’ of the opposite party and the behavioural attitude tarnished the image of the complainant in the eye of the public.  The complainant submits that booking the ticket for a particular day of travel and denying the seat leads to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

  The opposite party specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the bus bearing No.335 Chennai to Vedaranyam depart at 20.00 hours has only 40 seats.   The scheduled bus was not available due to some technical reasons.  The opposite party states that the said fact was duly informed to the complainant and he boarded the bus bearing Registration No. TN 01 N 8871.  On boarding the bus, the complainant and his family members were not able to occupy the seats allotted to them since the bus is restricted to 40 seats.   The opposite party states that after occupying their respective seats of the passengers, the conductor informed the complainant that there is no seat available for him for which, the complainant was requested to travel in the bus along with his family members adjusting to sit with other co-passengers and travelled in the bus on his own volition.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   The opposite party states that neither the conductor or the driver has used any unparliamentarily words as alleged in the complaint.  Without any hardship, the complainant and his family members had travelled in the bus.  The opposite party states that on the petition of the complainant, the departmental enquiry was conducted by the opposite party also issued reply notice dated:20.10.2010.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite part and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.405/- paid towards bus ticket and a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship, humiliation, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as prayed for?

 

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he booked 9 tickets on 18.05.2010 in the TNSTC at 20 hours.   Seat Nos. namely 36 to 44 were reserved vide Ticket Nos. AX 3366277 and AX 336628 in route bus No. 335 for performing journey dated: 21.05.2010 from Chennai CMBT to Vedaranyam to attend an important marriage function. Further the complainant contended that while boarding the bus, the complainant and his family members were not able to occupy the seats allotted to them since the seats available in the bus were restricted to 40 only.   Thereby, the complainant was constrained to travel from Chennai to Vedaranyam by standing nearly 350 kms.    Further the complainant pleaded and contended that he is a chronic diabetic patient.   Due to over strain, hardship and mental stress, the complainant was compelled to undergo medical treatment as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3, Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 expended a sum of Rs.1,500/-.   Further the contention of the complainant is that as per the journey bills, Ex.A8 & Ex.A9, Transport Report, it is very clear that the opposite party did advance booking for 45 passengers.  Out of which, 37 adults and 4 children were boarded the bus for travel.  Evenafter repeated requests, the conductor of the bus denied the seat to the complainant.  On the other hand, the conductor of the bus permitted to travel 3 fresh passengers to board as well as arranged seats to them.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he is a senior citizen practicing as an Advocate was humiliated by the conductor of the bus Thiru. Manikandan employee No.34011, driver Mr. Muthuraja employee No. 34627 in such manner caused severe mental pain.  The unparliamentarily words used by the employees’ of the opposite party and the behavioural attitude tarnished the image of the complainant in the eye of the public.  Further the contention of the complainant is that booking the ticket for a particular day of travel and denying the seat amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The only contention raised by the opposite party is that the bus route No.335 has only 40 seats.  The time keeper informed the conductor to accommodate the passengers booked in that bus itself proves the deficiency in service. 

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the bus route bearing No.335 Chennai to Vedaranyam depart at 20.00 hours has only 40 seats.   The scheduled bus was not available due to some technical reasons.  But on a careful perusal of records, the opposite party has not produced any document to prove which is the scheduled bus not operated due to technical reasons.  On the other hand, it is very clear from Ex.B1, Ex.A8, Ex.A9 and tickets Ex.A1 proves that the scheduled bus is route No.335 alone which is having only 40 seats.  But the opposite party issued ticket for 45 passengers knowing fully well that the 40 seat bus cannot occupy 45 passengers for such long travel proves the deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the said fact was duly informed to the complainant and he boarded the bus bearing Registration No. TN 01 N 8871.  On boarding the bus, the complainant and his family members were not able to occupy the seats allotted to them since the bus is restricted to 40 seats only.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that after occupying their respective seats of the passengers, the conductor informed the complainant that there is no seat available for him.   The complainant was requested to travel in the bus along with his family members adjusting to sit with other co-passengers and travelled in the bus on his own volition.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   But it is not denied that after issuing ticket from seat Nos.36 to 44 denying seat for one passenger amounts to unfair trade practice. 

7.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that neither the conductor or the driver has used any unparliamentarily words as alleged in the complaint.  Without any hardship, the complainant and his family members had travelled in the bus; is not acceptable.  Because the complainant and his family members admittedly travelled in the bus having restricted seat of 40 against the booking of 45 seats.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that on the petition of the complainant, the departmental enquiry was conducted by the opposite party authorities and also issued reply dated:20.10.2010 as per Ex.B2.  In the enquiry also, both conductor and driver submitted their respective statements as per Ex.B3 & Ex.B4.  On a careful perusal of Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, it is very clear that the ticket was booked for the bus bearing route No.335 conveniently suppressed the registration No. of the vehicle and has not denied the enroute passengers on the way to Vedaranyam.  It is also not denied by the opposite party that travelling without seat by a passenger who is a senior citizen shall give discomfort which may cause several inconvenience proves the deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall refund the ticket value for a sum of Rs.405/- and a sum of Rs.798/- expended towards medical expenses with a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to refund the ticket value for a sum of Rs.405/- (Rupees Four hundred and five only), to pay a sum of Rs.798/- (Rupees Seven hundred and ninety eight only) being amount expended towards medical treatment and a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of February 2019. 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	18.05.2010	Copy of ticket Nos.336627 & 336628
Ex.A2	06.02.2010	Copy of diabetic foot screening
Ex.A3	06.02.2010	Copy of medical prescription
Ex.A4	24.07.2010	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A5	31.07.2010	Copy of RPAD acknowledgement card
Ex.A6	21.08.2010	Copy of medical prescription
Ex.A7	14.09.2010	Copy of medical receipt
Ex.A8		Copy of journey bill of the SETC
Ex.A9		Copy of the report by the SETC

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- 

Ex.B1	21.05.2010	Copy of trip sheet
Ex.B2	20.10.2010	Copy of reply from the opposite party
Ex.B3	03.01.2011	Copy of explanation given by the conductor
Ex.B4		Copy of explanation offered by the driver

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT