BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No. 17/2015

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2018

(Date of Institution: 06.04.2015)

S. Joy Walker

S/o. Shahul Hameed,

No.44, Bharathi Street,

Kathirmam,

Pondicherry                                                ….     Complainant

vs

The Managing Director,

Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation,

Near: Pondicherry Bus Stand,

Pondicherry                                                 ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

Tmt. D. KAVITHA, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru G. Murugaiyan,  S. Pragash and

S. Velmurugan, Advocates           

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:        Thiru B. Mohandoss, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, Rs.2,400/- towards the amount spent on taxi and Rs.356/- towards the amount paid by the petitioner for purchasing the ticket and to pay the costs of the proceedings with 12% interest from the date of petition.

2.       The case of the complainant is as follows:

          On 23.12.2014 the complainant has reserved two tickets from Pondicherry to Karaikal for his son and daughter-in-law.   The petitioner reserved the ticket for the bus operated by the respondent herein from Pondicherry to Karaikal starting at about 18.30 hours from Pondicherry Bus Stand.    Towards the booking through on-line, the petitioner paid Rs.356/- for the tickets.   Since the petitioner's daughter-in-law was in full term (family way) the petitioner, reserved the ticket in the Volvo bus to avoid unnecessary shocks and vibrations.    The ticket number given to the petitioner in A/c. Volvo bus operated by the respondent is ORA 20758 Route No.655.    On 25.12.2014 at about 6.15 P.M. the petitioner brought his son and daughter-in-law to send-off them from the bus stand.   The petitioner, his son and his daughter-in-law were waiting in the bus stand till 18.45 hours, but there was no sign of the respondent's bus in the bus stand.   The petitioner's son is working in the Police Department and his daughter-in-law also working in Agriculture Department in Tamil Nadu Government Service.      Since both of them after report to their respective offices, they were expected to reach Karaikal in time and after taking proper rest they have planned to attend their respective offices.   Hence the petitioner reserved the ticket in the above referred bus, calculating the time for taking rest.     Till 18.45 hours on 25.12.2014 the bus in which the ticket were booked, did not reach bus stand and therefore the petitioner enquired  the enquiry officer of the respondent in the bus stand about the bus.   But the petitioner was informed that the said bus was not operated for the past one week prior to the date of reservation and therefore the enquiry officer informed the petitioner to take alternative arrangement by himself to reach the destination.    The respondent should not have issued tickets to a bus which was not operated for more than one week.   The attitude of the respondent in booking the tickets is totally irresponsive.   At the time of booking the petitioner has given his contact number to the respondent Booking Officer in the prescribed form through online.   If the bus is not operated the respondent should have informed about the non operation of the bus to the consumer well in advance.   Therefore, the petitioner contacted the Manager (Operation) of the respondent and he simply informed the petitioner that the said bus was not operated due to break down for the past 6 days.   The attitude and the answer of the respondent's officer show their negligence and also their recklessness.    Due to the deficiency in service i.e. non-operation of the bus and non-information in respective of the non-operation of the bus shows the negligence on the part of the respondent.   Due to the last minute information that too after the personnel efforts of the petitioner the non-operation of the bus came to the knowledge of the petitioner.    Therefore the petitioner was forced to engage a taxi to Karaikal as planned for the reasons mentioned supra.    For arranging a taxi the petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2,400/-.   The petitioner was forced to spend the amount only deficiency to the respondent.  Because of the deficiency of his service the petitioner is undergoing unnecessary mental torture and agony at Pondicherry Bus stand as the respondent without information failed to operate the bus as per the ticket issued.    Therefore the petitioner has issued a notice calling upon the respondent to refund the ticket amount Rs.356/- and Rs.2400/- towards the amount spending the taxi and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and torture caused due to the last minute cancellation of the bus.   The said notice was sent by the petitioner on 31.12.2014.   The respondent has received the said notice on 2.1.2015 and the respondent neither reply nor complied with the notice sent by the petitioner.   The respondent not only neglected his duty caused upon and also neglected to respondent the notice sent by a consumer which shows the reckless and lethargic and negligent act of the respondent.    Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

3.       The first reply version filed by the opposite party, briefly discloses the following:

          The complainant has no locus-standi to prefer the complaint for the alleged loss or damage sustained by his and daughter-in-law as disclosed in the complaint.   The opposite party submits that the Volvo A/C bus was operated on 22.12.2014 also and accordingly reservation was made for the bus on 23.12.2014 for the travel on 25.12.2014.   Unexpectedly, the bus got major repair work and the bus could not take the trip at 18.30 hours on 23.12.2014 and in the next following days also on 24.12.2014 and 25.12.2014.    It is significant to note that the Volvo A/C bus is highly technical built vehicle with Electronic Components than the ordinary buses.   Trained technician in Volvo A/C buses will only attend and rectify the defects/repair works from the Authorized Dealer of Volvo A/C bus.   In view of this, the respondent work could not be rectified till the trip on 25.12.2014, despite the prompt steps taken by the Opposite party with the dealer concerned to make the bus operational one.   On 25.12.2014 from 3.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. the staff working in the Reservation Counter at New Bus Stand contacted over phone to the complainant's phone number given in the reservation or to inform the message of non-operation of the Volvo A/C bus at 18.30 hours on 25.12.2014 due to repair works.   But there was no response from the complainant.   The message of the non-operation of the Volvo A/C bus on 25.12.2014 for the 18.30 hours trip was informed to all the passengers who came for the trip by the staff of the reservation counter.   The complaint also approached the reservation counter for the trip (18.30 hours).   The staff who as working in the counter convincingly informed to the complainant that due to the repair work of the bus, the trip could not be operated and get the full refund for the tickets.   As per the practice being taken at the time of break-down of any bus, the staff in the counter requested the complainant and assured that he would arrange for seats to them in the buses of other Transport Corporations operating the trip between 6.45 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 25.12.2014.   The complainant did not accept the reply and the arrangements made by the staff of reservation counter and also not agreed to get the full refund of their tickets.   Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Assistant Manager (Operation) about the trip.   The Assistant Manager also tried to convince the complainant and assured them that he will arrange for seats in the buses of other corporations to go to Karaikal.    Also, he has offered full refund of their tickets to them.   But the complainant adamantly replied and argued that they will go only in the Volvo A/C bus and they will not accept the arrangements in the buses of other corporations.  Further they refused to receive the full refund.   More over the Assistant Manager (Operation) made his all efforts to convince the complainant and asked excuse for the inconvenience.   But in vain.   The complainant did not accept any arrangements and challenged to the Assistant Manager (Operation) that he will drag the corporation in the Consumer Court.    The opposite party would like to bring to the kind attention of this Forum that on the facts and circumstances stated above, there is no fault or imperfection on the part of the officials of the opposite party in its inability to operate the A/C Volvo bus on 25.12.2014 for the trip at 18.30 hours from Puducherry to Karaikal.   It is crystal clear that when the opposite party Corporation has taken all its efforts at its disposal without any blamable conduct on its part, the mere failure to operate the bus cannot, by any stretch of imagination be considered to be deficiency in service.   There is no cause of action for the complaint for the reliefs claimed.   The conduct of the complainant is not that of a reasonable man and calls for comments.     Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4.                Complainant was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 were marked through him and one Manikandan was examined as CW2.   On the side of the opposite party Thiru C. Kuzhandaivelu, Assistant Manager (Commercial) representing the opposite party was examined as RW1 and the witnesses R, Mahalakshmi and K. Adhivelu was examined as RW2 and RW3 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked through RW2.  

Both sides records and evidence were carefully perused by this Forum and observes as follows:

5.                 Points for determination are :

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?
2. Whether deficiency service is attributed by the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

6.                Point No.1:

                    It was submitted by the complainant that the complaint has reserved and availed two tickets in A/c. Volvo Bus operated by Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) (opposite party) for a journey of the complainant's son and daughter-in-law from Pondicherry to Karaikal, vide Ex.C3 and hence the complainant is a consumer.   It was contended by the opposite party that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the alleged loss of damage was sustained only by the complainant's son and daughter-in-law and hence the complainant cannot be a Consumer. 

7.                On perusal of the evidence it is observed that RW1 itself has admitted that complainant has booked the ticket.   The evidence of RW1 is as follows:

          "the complainant has booked the ticket ….  The complainant has given his cell phone number in the online booking…."

Further on the perusal of Ex.C4 it is observed that it is the complainant who had engaged a taxi for the complainant's son and daughter-in-law to reach Karaikal due to the cancellation of bus by the opposite party and thus the complainant had suffered a loss due to the act of opposite party and hence the complaint filed by the complainant as a consumer is maintainable before this Forum.    Further from the reading of section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, it is clear that complainant is entitled to file this complaint and hence this Forum is of the view that the complainant is a consumer, as per Section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.   This point is answered accordingly.  

8.       POINT NO.2:

          It was submitted by the complainant that the complainant has reserved and availed two tickets (Ex.C3) on 23.12.2014 in A/c. Volvo bus operated by the opposite party for the Journey of the complainant's son and daughter-in-law from Puducherry to Karaikal on 25.12.2014.   But the opposite party has not operated the bus on the date schedule for departure due to the break down of the bus.   It was further submitted by the complainant that it was when the complainant sought to ascertain from the opposite parties the reason for non-arrival of the bus at the schedule time of departure, the opposite party informed that the concerned bus was not in operation for more than six days from the date of the booking of the bus by the complainant.   Despite the fact of non-operation of the bus known to the opposite party at the time of the booking of ticket by the complainant on 23.12.2014, the negligence and recklessness in not informing the complainant about non-operation of the bus either at the time of booking or prior to the date of scheduled departure, caused the complainant to undergo hardship in processing alternate arrangement by engaging a taxi Ex.C4 for his son and daughter-in-law to reach Karaikal at the eleventh hour of the information of the cancellation of trip by the opposite party.   Hence the complainant sought for compensation from the opposite party through notice dated 31.12.2015 Ex.C1, but the opposite party having received the same on 2.1.2015 not responded to it.   Hence the complaint was filed against the opposite party seeking compensation before this Forum.  

9.                It was the submission of the opposite party that the bus was operated till 22.12.2014, unexpectedly the bus had developed a technical snag and on hope that the bus could be operated on the schedule date of departure on 25.12.2014, the reservation of ticket was allotted by the opposite party on 23.12.2014.    It was further submitted that as the snag was not sorted out as expected by the opposite party, the bus was not operated on 25.12.2014 and the same was informed to the complainant prior to the time of departure of the bus.  It was further submitted by the opposite party the complainant was given an option of either getting the full refund of the ticket availed by the complainant or for getting arranged to the seats in the other transport corporations, on the same schedule date of departure but the complainant has not opted for either of it.   It was submitted by the opposite party it was the complainant who refused the offer of the opposite party and the opposite party had acted diligently and there is no deficient act of the opposite party and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

10.     Admittedly the bus did not ply-on the scheduled date of departure i.e. on 25.12.2014, as booked by the complainant and the amount so booked for the ticket of two persons was not refunded to the complainant by the opposite party.   It is the contention of the opposite party that the non-operation of the Volvo A/c. bus on the scheduled date of departure i.e.25.12.2014 was informed to the complainant over phone before the scheduled time of departure of the bus, but for which the opposite party has not filed any register before the Forum for having informed the same to the complainant.   The evidence of RW1 clearly states as follows:

                   "it is true that we have not filed call register before this forum for having informed the same to the complainant".

Further evidence of RW1 reads as follows:

                   "it is true that I have not given any information about the operation of the bus at the bus stand to the complainant on that date".  

It is clear from the evidence of RW1 that the opposite party has not given any intimation of the non-operation of the bus to the complainant till the scheduled time of departure of bus on 25.12.2014.   Hence the contention of the opposite party that communication of the non-operation of the bus to the complainant was given prior to the date of departure does not hold good and is not tenable and the act of the opposite party concern in not intimating the complainant about the non-operation of the bus amounts to deficiency of service.  

11.     In support of the contention of the complainant that non-intimation of the cancellation of trip amounts to deficiency of service, the complainant relied upon the citation reported in CPJ 1995 P. 320 – Subba Reddiar and others Vs. Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, wherein it is held that

" the situation was one of uncertainity.   The proper course for the bus operation in such a circumstance is to cancel all reservation and intimate the facts to the concerned persons……"

"…..on the last moment bus did not ply, amounts to deficiency in service……"

On further perusal of evidence, it is observed that RW1 in his reply version and chief affidavit had affirmed that A/c. Volvo bus was not operated from 23.12.2014 to 25.12.2014 and the same was admitted during the cross examination also but whereas in the later part of the cross examination, RW1 has contradicted his own evidence by stating that the bus was operated on 23.2.2014.   Further the trip sheets Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 produced by the opposite party concerned in support of the contradictory evidence of RW1 that the bus was operated on 23.2.2014 was found to be defective and the evidence of bus conductor RW2 through whom the trip sheets Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked clearly proves that same.   On perusal of the Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 it is explicit that Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 are falsely created for the purpose of this case and such type of inconsistent plea and admission of RW1 clearly reveals that the opposite party has not come with clean hands.   

12.     The evidence of RW2 reads as follows:

                   "The Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 does not contain the signature of the supervisor and also the columns 1 to 9 are not filled up.  …..Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 does not contain the serial number or volume number….:

In this context it is inferred by the Forum that the trips sheets are the outcome of the after thought process of the opposite party and falsely created for the purpose of the case.         Hence from the above facts it is observed that the Volvo bus was not operated on 23.12.2014, the date on which the complainant booked the ticket for the proposed travel on 25.12.2014 and despite opposite party knowing the fact that the bus was not in operation on the date of booking itself, the non-intimation of the same to the complainant even till the last minute of scheduled date of departure on 25.12.2014 amounts to deficiency of service by the opposite party.   Due to the cancellation of the operation of the bus on 25.12.2014 without any prior intimation by the opposite party, the complainant would have undergone great hardship and monetary loss in making alternative arrangements in engaging a taxi to send the complainant's son and pregnant daughter-in-law safely to Karaikal.    It is further observed by the Forum that the evidence of taxi driver CW2 about the trip undertaken for the complainant's son and the daughter-in-law to Karaikal and the trip sheet Ex.C4 produced in support of the same does not create any doubt and further nothing materialistic evidence has been elucidated from the cross examination of CW2 by opposite parties to discredit the evidence of CW2 and in this context it is held that the complainant has proved his case and entitled for the claim of the expenses incurred for engaging a taxi.

 13.             In view of the observation made in paras supra, it is held by this forum that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the hardship and monetary loss suffered due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party.   

14.              POINT No.3:

                    In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed and the O.P. is directed:

1. to refund the amount of Rs.356 towards the purchase of the tickets
2. to pay a sum of Rs.2,400/- towards the taxi charges paid by the complainant
3. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service by the opposite party

          iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2018.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:

CW1           14.8.2015             S. Joy Walker

CW2           30.3.2016             Manikandan      

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:

RW1           3.5.2017               N. Kuzhandaivelu

RW2           18.4.2018             R. Mahalakshmi

RW3           18.4.2018             K. Adhivelu

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

Ex.R1         22.12.2014           Trip sheet

Ex.R2         23.12.2014           Trip sheet

Ex.R3         25.12.2014           Trip Sheet           

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER