D.O.F. 07.12.2010

                                        D.O.O.15.11.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

       Present:   Sri. K.Gopalan                 :    President

             Smt. K.P.Preethakumari  :     Member

             Smt. M.D.Jessy                :     Member

Dated this the 15^th   day of  November   2011.

C.C.No.293/2010

T.P.Pavithran,

Sachin Nivas,

Ner U.P.School, Attadappa.P.O.

Kannur 6.                                                Complainant

Principal, Amritha Vidyalayam,

P.O.Kakkad, Kannur 670 005.

 (Rep. by M.Govindan Kutty)                         Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to restore the facility of School bus to complainant’s son from his residence and to pay    `10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and `10,000 for the harassment and mental agony together with the cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The son of the complainant studying in VIIth standard in opposite party’s school and from LKG onwards he has been studying there. The said school is 10 KMs. away from his residence. Complainant used to pay `400 per month for school bus. Presently he is paying `390 as per the oral agreement between the parents and school  auathority. When complainant shifted his family to Mundayad then also his son traveled by the school bus itself. Now he is staying permanently in the above address. But from 2.6.2010 onwards the driver started dropping him 1 ½ KM away from the residence of the complainant at Mundayad asking him to walk to his residence. The complainant reported this to school authorities but they did not take any action. On 3.6.2010 the school authorities sent him in an autorickshaw even without informing the parents. The complainant strongly objected to the authorities about this. The school authorities are bound to provide them necessary bus service when such a service is arranged by school authorities. They are liable for the gross negligence and deficiency in service as a result of which the student and his parents suffered great mental agony and financial loss. Complainant sent a registered letter on 5.6.2010 to the Principal, to take necessary steps. But their attitude makes it clear that they are not going to take any steps. Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: Mast Sachin, the son of the complainant studying in the above school from LKG standard onwards. While joining his mother submitted an admission form before the school authority, wherein the address is shown as “ Sahana Nivas” Mundayad P.O., Melechovva. The complainant was employed in Gulf for a long time. In his absence his family was residing in his wife’s house, Sahana Nivas’, situates at Mundayad. Master Sachin was coming to school from said sahana house and he has been using the school bus facility from Mundayad Bus stop. There was no complaint either from the complainant or other parents about the transport facility provided by the opposite party. In the last year (2010) Then the complainant was on leave, he temporarily shifted his residence to his newly built house at Attadappa. At that time, complainant personally contacted Mr.Sasi, who is in charge of school vehicles and requested him to bring Mster Sachin from his new house at Attadappa.  Sasi told him that that was not possible to deviate from  its natural route. When he requested again to bring his child for the remaining days of his stay over there, Mr.Sasi conceded his request and brought Master Sachin from Attadappa bus stop, till departure of complainant to Gulf. Thereafter, when complainant left to gulf his family shifted residence to Sahana Nivas, Mudayad Master Sachin was again using the bus facility from Mundayad bus stop, uninterruptedly, till the arrival of the complainant from Gulf. After his arrival he shifted his residence permanently to his new house at Attadappa along with his family. He requested Sasi to take his son from Attadappa. He replied that was not possible. Then the complainant threatened Mr.Sasi that dare consequences would be followed. But he has been using the school bus facility from Attadapa bus stop there after also. Even after reply to his notice he has been using the same facility. The alleged incidents narrated on 12.6.2010 and 3.6.2010 are not true. There was no such incident. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

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

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence adduced by PW1, PW2, DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1, A2 Ext.B1 etc..

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Admittedly the son of the complainant is a student of opposite party’s school. The case of the complainant is that the school authorities are not providing the school bus facilities to take the boy from his residence to school and to return even if complainant is ready to meet extra amount. The complainant alleges that the school authorities are bound to provide them necessary bus service when such a service is arranged by the school authorities. Opposite party on the other hand contended that Mater Sachin, son of the complainant is coming and going to school by using school bus facility from Mundayad bus stop even now.  They are not ready to change the route to pick up the boy from another bus stop as demanded by complainant from Attadappa.

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit as follows: His son used to go to school right from LKG by school Bus. He was picked up morning from the above said residence and returned him there in the evening. At the time when the wife of complainant changed his residence he used to travel in the same bus. The school is at distance of 10km from the above said residence ‘sachin Nivas’. Then the rout was via Thilannur. Now they are dropping the child at Muttolampara bus stop, Thazhechovva. Formerly the charge was `400 and now it is reduced to `390. The oral understanding was to pick up the child from the residence. During the time when child was picked up from Mundayad, the fare was only `265. From 2.6.2010 the child was dropped on the way at a distance of 1 ½ km far from the residence. All the requests of the  complaint had been rejected by the school authorities. Ext.A2 series are cash receipts which prove that Master Sachin is the student of opposite party.Ext.B1 is the Admission Form. It shows the address Sahana Nivas Mundayad, Mele  chovva. The pickup point written is Mundayad. So as per Ext.B1 the pick up point was Mundayad. The contention of opposite party that the boy was coming to school from Sahana house and he has been using the school bus facility from Mundayad Bus stop cannot be discarded as per Ext.B1. The case of the complainant is that at the time of studying in LKG the boy was picked up from Attadappa so he has to be taken from there itself in future also. Opposite party’s case on the other hand is that complainant and family were residing in Sahana Nivas and the boy had been using school facility from Mundayad bus stop. Last year (2010) when complainant was on leave he temporarily shifted his residence to his newly built house at Attadappa. At that time on his personal request Mr.Sasi temporally agreed to bring the boy from Attadappa bus stop, till departure of the complainant to Gulf. Thereafter complainant left to Gulf and again his family shifted their residence to Sahana Nivas, Mundayad and then      started using the school bus facility from Mundayad bus stop, uninterruptedly, till the arrival of the complainant from Gulf. After his arrival he shifted his residence to his new house at Attadappa along with his family and contacted Mr.Sasi to request to bring the boy from Attadappa which was then and there denied by him replying that it was not possible to change the school bus route for a single child. Opposite party also contended that the boy has been using the school bus facility from Mundayad bus stop, till date. The available evidence shows that the boy is even now using the school bus. DW1 in cross examination deposed that “Ip«n-Isf _Ên-d-¡n-hn-Sp-t¼mÄ  Ah-cpsS kpc-£n-X-X-zT {i²n-¡m-dp­v. tÌm¸o c£n-Xm-¡Ä h¶p Iq«n-sIm-­p-t]m-Im-dmWv km[m.-cW sN¿mdv.”

          However, complainant did not produce any evidence to prove that there was any understanding between the complainant and school authorities that the school bus facility will be provided up to the residence of the complainant. At the same time Ext.B1 proves that there was an understanding with respect to the pick up point at Mundayad. Ext.B1 is admitted by the complainant. Complainant deposed in cross examination that “Ext.B1 formse pick up place amäm³ \S-]Sn kzn-I-cn¨p F¶mWv Fsâ HmÀ½. Cu Imc-yT kl-\-¡mWv And-bp-I.”                                                                                                Complainant did not explain the steps that he has taken to change the pick up point fixed in Ext.B1. Sahana, who is aware of this fact, has not been examined before the Forum.  So it can be inferred that he has not taken any such step to change the pickup spot. Deficiency of service can only be casted if any such promise is broken by opposite party. Complainant did not prove that opposite party is a promise breaker.  There is no doubt if any such promise is broken by the opposite party there is deficiency in service. Complainant could not substantiate his case with ample evidence. Any agreement or understanding with the school authorities with respect to the pick up spot at residence as alleged by the complainant has not been proved by the complainant. Complainant has the burden to prove that there was such promise to pick up the boy from his residence at Attadappa. Only on violation of such promise the deficiency of service can be attributed up on the   shoulders of opposite party. Ext.B1 is a document which reveals that the clear understanding with the school authorities is to pick up the boy from Mundayad.

          In the light of the available evidence we are of opinion that complainant failed to prove his case and no deficiency on the part of opposite party could be proved adducing evidence. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                   Sd/-               Sd/-                    Sd/-

                      President                   Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.Copy of the registered notice dt.5.6.10 sent to OP

 A2.  Cash receipts issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1. Admission form submitted by complainant’s wife before OP

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

PW2.T.C.Pradeepan

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.K.T.Saseendran

                                                 / forwarded by order/

                                                                                                                                           Senior Superintendent