For the Complainant                       -  In Person

For the OP                                         -  Mr. Niladri Roy, Advocate 

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application U/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

Briefly stated, the complainant had booked bus ticket vide PNR No. B3K6BKSA through online to travel from Balurghat to Esplanade in bus bearing registration No. WB-23D-7834 operated by O.P. Shyamali Yatri Paribahan, departing at 20-00 hours on 09.10.2018. According to the complainant, he had handed over his trolley bag containing tools and cloths to the bus supervisor against luggage token No.12260. Bus arrived on the following morning at Esplanade. Despite showing luggage token the concerned staff of the OP failed to deliver luggage to the complainant and verbally assured to deliver luggage against token No.12260 as soon as it is to be traced out. Finding no other alternative, complainant sent letter dated 17.12.2018 to the OP demanding delivery of luggage. As no response thereto is received, the complainant lodged General Diary being No. 640 dated 10.10.2018 to Maidan P.S. Ultimately, complainant filed the instant complaint reiterating the grievance and praying for direction to the OP to pay Rs.40,000/- as cost of luggage trolley bag including the tools and cloths contained therein along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

The OP has contested the complaint by filing Written Version raising preliminary objection and also asserting that the luggage tag never issued by OP. The complainant having failed to mention the registration number of the bus which he had availed on 09.10.2018. The complainant is solely responsible for the situation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In short, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

We have heard the complainant in person as well as the Ld. Advocate for the OP.

While dealing with consumer complaint, the jurisdiction or the nature of enquiry to be undertaken by the Consumer Fora is limited to the factum of deficiency in service and to award compensation only, if that fact is substantiated by the party alleging the same. The expression “deficiency in service” has been  defined  in Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravneet Singh Bagga-vs-KLM Royal Dutch Airline & Anr reported in III (1999) CPJ28 (SC) have been pleased to opine as follows:-

 “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has on facts, been found to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bonafide disputes no willful fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority render in service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service.”

Thus, the enquiry in such proceedings is limited to grievance about deficiency in service, which is distinct from the tortuous acts of the other party. In this regard, we must immediately notice the assertion of the OP in the complaint to ascertain whether the claim of deficiency in service in relation to the stated contract has been pleaded or otherwise. It will be useful to advert to Paragraph-3 of the amended complaint, which reads thus:-

“3. That the petitioner purchased travelling ticket No. TMB416326797 online (the price of ticket inclusive of the fair of luggage) towards journey from Balurghat Volvo Stand to Esplanade (Kolkata) being bus registration No. WB-23D-7834.”

On the same lines, the complainant Suhash Kumar Bapari has deposed. The question is; whether the averments in the complaint contain material facts with regard to deficiency in service complained about? Even on a fair reading of the complaint coupled with its annexure thereto and the evidence given on the same lines,  all that can be discerned is that complainant had availed Redbus service of Shyamali Yatri Paribahan on 09.10.2018 which was scheduled to depart at 20-00 hours from Balurghat. Be that as it may, mention here that e-ticket does not disclose the registration number of the bus which the complainant availed on 09.10.2018. The complainant has clearly stated that despite showing luggage token, the concerned staff of OP failed to deliver his luggage. Terms & conditions of e-ticket read as follows:-

“1 Redbus is an online ticketing platform. It does not operate bus services of its own. In order to provide a comprehensive choice of bus operators, departure times and prices to customers, it has ties up with many bus operators. Redbus’s advice to customers is to choose bus operators they are aware of and whose service they are comfortable with.

Redbus responsibilities do not include:-

1) ………………………

2) ………………………

3) ………………………

4) ………………………

5)  The baggage of the customer getting lost/stolen/damaged.”

Thus, it is clear that the OP Shyamali Yatri Paribahan is not liable to the customer for any loss/stolen or damage of baggage with the provision of 1 (5) of this terms & conditions. As such, we cannot ignored the terms & conditions of e-ticket.

The complainant has produced photocopy of letter dated 17.12.2018 addressed to the OP regarding missing of luggage trolley bag booked on 09.10.2018 and copy of G.D. Entry No. 640 dated 10.10.2018 of Maidan P.S. On perusal of those documents, we find that on 09.10.2018 at 20-00 hours complainant had availed bus bearing registration No. WB-230-7843 of Shyamali Yatri Paribahan from Balurghat Bus Stand though in the complaint as well as evidence on affidavit, complainant stated that on 09.10.2018 at 20-00 hours he had availed bus bearing No. WB-23D-7834 from Balurghat to Esplanade operated by OP Shyamali Yatri Paribahan. Therefore, the documentary evidence furnished by the complainant does not support the complaint as well as his evidence on affidavit regarding avail of bus bearing No. WB-23D-7834 on 09.10.2018 at 20-00 hours. We are not satisfied regarding discrepancy of oral testimony and documentary evidence of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the e-ticket does not bear the registration No. of Redbus but it is also mentioned the date of journey and the terms & conditions. Complaint is filed for unreasonable gains and demand of complainant is frivolous. In our opinion, there is no  deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

For all the above mentioned reasons, we find no merit in the complaint. The complaint, being devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.