Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/197/2015

M/s.K.Hari Haran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Red Bus Agency - Opp.Party(s)

D.Vijay Kumar

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                                 Date of Complaint Filed :30.04..2015

                                                 Date of Reservation       :20.10.2022

                                                 Date of Order                :16.11.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 197/2015

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

K. Hari Haran,

S/o. K.C. Venkataraman (late),

Aged 64 years,

Residing at 12/52,

Veerabadhran Street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 34.                                                                                                                             …  Complainant

-Vs-

1.The Red Bus Agency,

   Rep. by its Authorised Signatory & Manager,

   No.F7 to F14, Sriji Majestic Commercial Complex,

   1^st Floor, Omini Bus Terminus,

   Koyambedu,   

   Chennai – 600 107.

 

2.Shama Sardhar Travels,

   Rep. by Manager,

   Having Head Office at Shop No.3,

   Sriji Majestic Commercial Complex,

   Omni Bus Stand Enterance,  

   Koyambedu,

   Chennai – 600 107.                                                                                                                ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant            : M/s. D. Vijayakumar,

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party     : M/s. Fox Mandal & Associates

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party    : M/s. D. Chandrasekar

 

        On perusal of records and having the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.31,750/- towards total damages to the complaint and to pay interest at 18% p.a on the sum of Rs.31,750/- till the date of actual payment and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is a practicing lawyer of 64 years of age, having been in practice for the past 39 years in the High Court, Madras and at various courts at Madras and nearby courts. On the personal invitation from his family friend Mrs.S.V.Venkataraman at Chengalpattu, was to attend the marriage of the son of S.V.Venkataraman at Hosur, Tamil Nadu state Border, celebrated on 13.04.2014 with Muhurtham at 9 am to 10.30 am a holiday. In order to accommodate his court work, busy schedule, booked reserved 2 bus journey tickets (1) from Chennai to Hosur on the midday on 12.4.2014 and (ii) return journey from Hosur to Chennai at midday (noon) on 13.4.2014 both through the Red Bus Agency called to be an Agency for advance reservation bus journey tickets. Tickets were booked (via) the Complainant's own computer on 06.04.2014. Heplanned his journey by A/c Volvo Bus Service, considering the summer season. He booked Chennai to Hosur ticket for journey on 12.04.2014 in K.P.N. Bus A/c Service Volvo Bus bearing ticket No TG 5534699 with departure time from Chennai at 1.30 PM andperformed his journey on 12.4.2014. On reaching Hosur at around 7.30 P.M. on that day he had reserved accommodation in Hotel Riao, USB Towers opposite to Hosur main Bus Stand and attended some preparatory programmes in the marriage on the next day. He had also reserved for return journey on 13.4.2014 by Shama Sardar Travels, the 2^nd Opposite Party, booked through Red Bus Agency with Ticket No. TG 5538542866 by Volvo A/c Semi-sleeper bus with seat No.D4 with departure time at 12.30 PM at Hosur with landmark place opposite to Hosur Bus Stand with reporting time at 12.15 PM. Both the tickets onward and return journey tickets were computer generated printed tickets. As usual with business practice the 1^st Opposite Party sent S.M.S.Message to his mobile that he can perform his journey as per schedule by reserved Bus wishing a happy journey. On 13.4.2014 all of a sudden when he was at the marriage hall, attending the function, at about 10.00 AM or so he received a phone call through his mobile phone, describing it to be a call from Shama Sardar Travels from Bangalore that suddenly the 2^nd Opposite Party had rescheduled their travel plan and that the Bus for downward journey would start early and directed him to be at the reporting spot at Hosur at 11.00 AM itself and that the Bus would pass Hosur around 11.00 to 11.15 AM directly in controversion to its terms of booking of ticket and the time schedule. He then explained that he is in marriage function attending the function and that he could not wind up his programme and he cannot skip all his commitments and report 1 hour earlier and explained that it was impossible for him to re-arrange and re- schedule the things since the manage function would be over only by 10.45 am or so and that he needs to get back to his Hotel and re-pack his luggage an check out with the hotel of staying. Then the 2^ndOpposite Party again called and told that he could perform his travel as per original schedule. Anyhow Complainant quickly closed his schedule in the marriage hall at 11.15 am or so, returned to his hotel, checked out in hotel in quick process by 11.50 am came to the reported spot at Hosur Bus Stand and waited for reporting from 11.55 AM at the spot near to National Travel Buildings as per instructions of 2^nd Opposite Party, since the Bus of 2^nd Opposite Party has no place & business or shop at Hosur. He was made to wait in the Hot Sun from 11.50 am to 1.30 pm with luggage on hand without shelter. All other Travel Buses have passed Hosur in their respective shelters or shop. The 2^nd Opposite Party's Bus never came to pick up him from 11.55 am. Puzzled by the events he again wasted some mobile calls in trying to get at 2^ndOpposite Party, but only one call materialized, when he reported and enquired that he had been waiting at schedule spot without shelter, from 11.55 am onwards till 1.30 PM on 13.04.2014 and asked why the Bus has not come, the representative of 2^nd Opposite Party at Bangalore in a cavalier manner replied that their Bus had passed Hosur by 11 AM itself contrary to terms of booking and that as he was not reported at 11.00 A.M. and be there the bus has noted his absence and proceeded with journey and is en-route to Chennai in the midway and asked him to make my arrangements on his own, to Chennai, it was a summer holiday and manage day, the rush was heavy. He could not get seat in any of the other buses passed through Hosur. Somehow or other Complainant went back to his Hotel of stay and found that KPN Travels having booking office in the Hotel Premises, but it was replied that tickets would be available only in the Nights Service keeping him, on tender hook, without much hope. Luckily the KPN agency reported that one or two seats may be available and promised to report within 15 minutes. Then KPN Agency informed him that one rear seat would be available by their 3.00 PM bus service. He had no other way, except to go and purchase a fresh ticket priced at Rs.700 or so and waited at the KPN Bus booking counter at Hosur for 1 hour and their bus scheduled at 3.00 PM came to Hosur at 3.10 PM and he had to occupy the rear most seat at Volvo Bus and reached Chennai around 9.30 P.M. at Koyambedu. Then he had secured an Auto (service) to his residence which cost him about Rs.150/-. This apart he had lot of discomforts the jerks and bumping always allied with rear seats in any Bus and was disturbed very much even physically. Only because of the violations of conditions in the ticket committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant was put to hardship, loss of time and extended uncomfortable journey and delay in reaching Chennai, he would have reached Chennai by 6.30 PM on 13.4.2014 if the journey would have been performed by the 2^nd Opposite Party's bus, he could have saved the time and could been spared hardships waste of time and the fleecing by the auto drivers at Koyambedu Bus Stand. He had also spend more for en-route expenses due to extra time of foisted journey. As a result he had not attend to either his work or be at home in time and lost all the forts, further he was made to wind up and withdraw early from marriage hall and functions and hotel in hurried up manner, and suffer avoidable standing and waiting in hot sun without shelter for nearly hours from 11.55 AM. Further he was put to untoward anxiety and sufferings without being able to get a confirmed ticket through other agencies and was subjected to take lot of liquid drinks. Health wise also took further 2 days to become normal for him at Chennai. As per the business practice, after confirmed tickets through Red Bus Agency are issued, any traveler will be communicated through SMS or Mobile phone reminders in the morning of the day of journey that he/she is expected to perform the journey through confirmed bus service from scheduled place of journey at the scheduled time. Complainant had received SMS, reminding and thanking for the promised journey by KPN Bus and Shama Sardar Travels also on both 12.4.2015 and 13.4.2015,on the respective dates. The SMS message on 13.04.2014 morning confirmed that the departure of the bus by 2^nd Opposite Party at Hosur the reporting time at 12:00 Noon at Hosur and departure time at 12.15 P.M. The conduct of 2^nd Opposite Party in advancing the schedule of the journey unilaterally, unmindful of the sufferings of the Travelling passengers, in a most arrogant way is clearly violating contractual terms of Travel ticket. The absence of promised service, to do so especially with conscious knowledge of such unsanctioned conduct clearly demonstrate the conduct as arrogant and monopolistic expecting all others to obey however illegal it may be. Thus the failure to keep up service by the conduct by 2^nd Opposite Party clearly amounts not only to disservice but also deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the 2^nd Opposite Party is answerable for the damages suffered by the Complainant. The offence complained of is severe nature. The Complainant issued a legal notice, to both the opposite parties on 8.5.2014 claiming damages. The opposite parties had received the same and acknowledged but have not so far sent any reply nor did comply with the demand by payment. Hence the complaint.

3.    Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

The instant complaint has been filed solely to gain undue publicity and obtain unjust enrichment from the Opposite Party. It is merely a brand name used by ‘Ibibo Group Private Limited’ which is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at F-130, Ground Floor, Street No. 7, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi- 110091 and having its corporate office at Karle Premium, Old Airport Round, Opposite Party. Manipal Hospital, Kodihalli Bengaluru 560 008. Ibibo Group Private Limited operates under the trade name 'Red Bus' and operates primarily through its website ‘www.redbus in’. The instant version is being filed on behalf of Ibibo Group Private Limited, the 1^st Opposite Party and the same may be read accordingly. They operate under the trade name Red Bus and it is an online bus ticketing company and is renowned in India for providing service of booking bus tickets online through its website www.redbus.in'. They are a well known and reputed company and provides its customers with a comprehensive choice of bus operators, departure times at competitive prices. The claims and allegations made by the Complainant against them were denied as false and frivolous. The instant complaint filed by the Complainant is neither maintainable on law or on facts and also for want of cause of action against them. The grievance of the Complainant if any was with the 2^nd Opposite Party, being the bus operator and not with them, which is merely a bus ticketing agency. It is an online ticketing portal which facilitates purchase of tickets for consumers through its website www.redbus in. They are only a ticketing portal for the principal viz. the 2^nd Opposite Party herein. They do not own and/or operate buses of its own. Their responsibilities are limited to the extent of providing a valid ticket, providing refund in cases of cancellation of tickets/ journeys and providing customer support. It is not within the responsibility of the 2^nd Opposite Party to control the bus operator and any change in timings of the departure by the bus operator viz. the 2^nd Opposite Party for unavoidable reasons. Without prejudice to the contentions, they wish to advert in seriatim the allegations & averments made by the Complainant in the complaint. They were not responsible for the Complainant being made wait under the sun for nearly two hours without shelter nor liable to pay any expenses incurred for any alternate travel. They were not guilty of deficiency of neither service nor unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant. They were not liable for any advancing schedule of neither the travel nor arrogant behavior of the bus operators and their terms and conditions were clear with regard to the same. No notice as alleged was caused by the Complainant. They were not liable to pay the Complainant for the alleged claims made in the Complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.    Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

 They did not know the profession of the Complainant. The Complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he booked ticket in Red Bus Agency and therefore he is not consumer to this Opposite Party. They have their own web site and the complaint has not booked ticket through their web site and therefore they were not responsible to this Complainant. There is no consumer relationship between them and the Complainant. The Complainant himself stated that the 1^stOpposite Party alone send SMS to him and if at all he booked ticket from them, definitely they would have send SMS for ticket and it would clearly show that they were no way connected to this complaint. They would send SMS to all the passengers who have booked tickets to their bus, but they have not sent SMS to this Complainant because ticket was not booked by him from them.  On 13.04.2014 the 1^st Opposite Party asked the 2^nd Opposite Party to pick up one passenger from Hosur and drop him at Chennai and this Opposite Party informed the first Opposite Party that the passenger should wait at opposite to Hosur bus stand at about 12.15 PM and board the bus and as such on 13.04.2014 the bus reached the Hosur Bus Stand at about 12.10 P.M. and waited for 20 minutes for boarding the passenger. Since no passenger was come to board the bus they called the Red Bus Agency and asked about the passenger. The Red Bus Agency told them that the passenger's phone was not reachable and asked them to wait 5 more minutes and they also waited another 5 minutes but no passenger was come to board the bus and therefore they proceeded towards Chennai therefore it was false to state that without picking up the Complainant their bus left. Further it is false to state that the Complainant waited in a hot summer for two hours and put the Complainant to strict proof of the same. Even assuming that the Complainant booked ticket through the 1^st Opposite Party it is the duty of the Complainant to report the spot on the scheduled time but the Complainant did not reported the spot on the scheduled time. It is denied that the Complainant booked another ticket in KPN bus and traveled and put the Complainant to strict proof of the same. Even assuming that the Complainant booked ticket in second time for the journey it was his own fault for not reporting the spot on the scheduled time. They never violated any condition which was printed in their ticket and if at all the Complainant has any claim, he has to proceed against the 1^stOpposite Party and not against them, because he has not booked any ticket from them and there was no consumer relationship between them and the Complainant. If at all the claim was genuine, definitely he would have filed the case immediately after sending the alleged legal notice but after lapse of one year the Complainant filed this complaint, would clearly shows the intention of the Complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-17  were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1^st Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2, were marked. The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party no documents was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had booked a ticket with the 2^nd Opposite Party for his return journey from Hosur to Chennai on 13.04.2014 at 12.30 pm with a reporting time at 12.15 pm, through the 1^st Opposite Party. It is also not in dispute that ticket No.TG 5538542866 in Volvo A/c semi-sleeper with seat No.D-4 was confirmed by the 2^nd Opposite Party for the said journey.

The disputed fact of the Complainant was that while he was attending his family friend’s son’s marriage on 13.04.2014 he had received a call about 10 am from the representative of the 2^nd Opposite Party with whom he had booked and got a confirmation of seat for his return journey at 12.30 pm, and he was asked to report by 11 am as their bus would pass between 11 am to 11.15 am. It was replied by the Complainant that he was in a marriage and he could not wind up the programme and skip his commitments and report one hour earlier than the scheduled time of 12.15 am. The representative of the 2^nd Opposite Party again had called the Complainant and informed to report at the scheduled time of 12.15 am. Thereafter the Complainant had reached the spot to board the bus at 11.50 am itself and had waited for the bus for his pickup, but till 1.30 pm no bus of the 2^nd Opposite Party came for his pickup nor passed by. Having waited in hot sun without any shelter or shop he tried calling the 2^nd Opposite Party number of times and only a call materialised, through which he come to know that the 2^nd Opposite Party’s bus passed the Spot at Hosur by 11 am itself. Thereafter he had to make arrangement for his return journey from Hosur to Chennai and after severe efforts, he got a ticket for his return journey from Hosur in a rear side seat in KPN travels scheduled at 3 pm by paying a sum of Rs.700/-. After great difficulty he had reached Chennai. The untoward incident had taken place because of the carelessness and negligent act with conscious monopolistic attitude of the Opposite Parties without minding the consequences.

The Contentions of the 1^st Opposite Party were that the return ticket was booked online through their website. They are only responsible for booking the ticket and they do not own or operate any bus of their own. As per their terms and conditions they cannot be held responsible if the bus operator has not departed / reached on time and also for the employees of the bus operator being rude. Moreover the complaint had sought relief only against the 2^nd Opposite Party and hence they were not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the Complainant.

The Contentions of the 2^nd Opposite Party were that there was no relationship between them and the Complainant and the Complainant is not a consumer, as the ticket was booked through 1^st Opposite Party. Though they have their own web site for booking tickets, the Complainant had not booked ticket directly from them. Further they would be sending SMS and make calls only to the customers who booked ticket directly with them. As the ticket was booked through the 1^st Opposite Party, their bus reached the spot at Hosur at 12.10 pm and waited for 20 minutes and as no passenger turned up for boarding they called the 1^st Opposite Party and as the 1^st Opposite Party had informed them that the Complainant could not be reached, after waiting for another 5 minutes they proceeded towards Chennai. Hence there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by them and they were not liable to compensate the Complainant.

On discussions made above and on perusal of records, it is clear from Ex.A-2 confirmed ticket dated 06.04.2014 issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant for journey from Hosur to Chennai on 13.04.2014 in the 2^nd Opposite Party Bus with departure time at 12.30 pm and reporting time as 12.15 pm. From Ex.A-3 Notice dated 08.05.2014 sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, explaining the untoward incident that had taken place, wherein he had clearly explained the phone calls he received from the representative of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the conversation took place between him and the representative of the 2^nd Opposite Party, who was initially asked to report one hour earlier and thereafter by another call he was asked to report on schedule time, in spite of the same the 2^nd Opposite Party bus had not arrived for his pickup from 11.50 am to 1.30 pm, hence had claimed for refund of ticket value of Rs.550/- as well as a sum of Rs.700/- spent for getting ticket from KPN Travels for his return journey from Hosur to Chennai. In spite of receipt of said notice, there was no response from the Opposite Parties. The Contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that their responsibility ends on booking of the ticket and they cannot held responsible for bus operations either with regard to departure/reaching time or rudeness of the employees of the bus operator and once ticket is booked, it is between the bus operator and the Complainant, is not all sustainable, as the terms and conditions printed in the ticket is being issued on confirmation of the ticket with the bus operator to its customers and the same are unilateral and the same do not bind the Complainant, further in the instant case, only at the request of the 1^st Opposite Party the bus operator, the 2^nd Opposite Party had agreed to pickup the Complainant by allotting and confirming a seat and thus the Opposite Party had acted as an agent of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Further the contentions of the 2^nd Opposite Party that there was no relationship between them and Complainant, and they would have sent SMS about the arrival and other details of the journey only to the customers who booked through their web site, since the Complainant had booked their ticket through the 1^st Opposite Party, they were not responsible for the claim by the Complainant, is not at all sustainable, as the 2^nd Opposite Party having allowed/permitted the 1^st Opposite Party as their agent to book tickets for their bus operations, as Principal, the 2^nd Opposite Party is liable and responsible for the act of the 1^st Opposite Party. The Carelessness and negligent act of not communicating about the details of the bus journey in which the Complainant was about to travel in spite of reported even before the Schedule time on 13.04.2014 at the spot mentioned in the ticket and thereby had failed to pickup the Complainant, which made the Complainant to wait for the 2^nd Opposite Party bus and thereafter to make arrangement for his return travel in spite of having a confirmed ticket in his hand, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,250/- together with interest @9% p.a from 13.04.2014 to till the date of this order and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with cost of Rs.3,000/-, to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,250/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) (being Rs.550/- towards the ticket fare booked from Hosur to Chennai through 1^st Opposite Party for travel in 2^nd Opposite Party Bus and being a sum of Rs.700/- towards extra ticket booked for travel from Hosur to Chennai with KPN travel), together with interest @9% p.a from 13.04.2014 to till the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only), to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 16^th of November 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	12.04.2014	Computer ticket Red Bus Agency
Ex.A2	13.04.2014	Computer Ticket Red Bus Agency
Ex.A3	08.05.2014	Notice by Complainant to Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	10.05.2014	Postal Acknowledgement from 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5	12.05.2014	Postal Acknowledgement from 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A6	11.02.2016	Letter by Complainant to Airtel Customer Care Section
Ex.A7	23.11.2016	Notice by Complainant to 2nd Opposite Party to produce documents
Ex.A8	23.12.2017	Request by Complainant to Public Information Officer National Highways Authority of India
Ex.A9	05.01.2018	Returned cover from NHAI Office, Guindy, Chennai with Postal acknowledgement card
Ex.A10	09.01.2018	Letter by Complainant to Project Director, NHAI under RTI Act
Ex.A11	12.01.2018	Interim Reply from Project Director NHAI Chennai
Ex.A12	18.01.2018	Received cover from NHAI Chennai containing reply
Ex.A13	02.02.2018	Letter from Complainant to 2nd Opposite Party’s counsel and M.D. Mugammialma with postal booking receipts
Ex.A14	05.02.2018	Acknowledgment by counsel of the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A15	06.02.2018	The refused cover from 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A16	20.02.2018	Returned cover with service endorsement
Ex.A17	23.01.2018	Printout (statement) copy of Rediffmail

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	-	Copy of the Board Resolution
Ex.B2	-	Copy of the term and conditions of the 1st Opposite Party as is also available on the website of the 1st Opposite Party (

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT