BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Monday, 2nd January 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 63 / 2016
V. Ramakrishnama Raju, S/o V. Ramaraju,
aged 62 years, D.No. C-02-504, APHB Colony,
Kadapa, Kadapa District. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, KadapaRegion, Kadapa Dist.
2. APSRTC, Hindupuram Depot, Rep. by its Depot Manager,
Hindupuram Depot, Hindupuram, Anatapur District.
3. Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Anantapuram Region,
Anantapuram district. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 28-12-2016 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 10/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs and expenses for deficiency in service towards him.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity which are in vernacular (Telugu) language is as follows :- The Complainant in order to go to Vempalli village boarded in RTC Bus bearing No. TNA : 158459 belonged to Hindupur Depot. On 27-8-2016 duty conductor No. CSD 403303, QN 48136852 was on duty in the bus. He came to the Complainant to collect ticket fare, the Complainant shown his I.D. No. 25635 pension photo card and asked the conductor to give him senior citizen ticket. The conductor demanded to show aadhar card and refused to give concession provided by the Government on the ticket. In spite of Complainant requested to accept the pension I.D card shown by him to provide the facility to the senior citizens, he did not accept the same and collected Rs. 10/- more on the ticket. Because of the bus conductor’s deficiency in service, the Complainant underwent lot of mental agony before the passengers and also sustained loss of Rs. 10/- and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. O.P.1 filed written version and O.P.2 and O.P.3 adopted the same by filing memo. The O.P.1 admitted that the Complainant travelled in the bus on that day but denied other allegations. It is further averred the conductor told the Complainant that in order to get concession he should produce either Aadar card, PAN card, voter I.D card, passport, ration card as per publication given by the Executive Director (operations) and the card shown by the Complainant has no application to avail concession. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs as no deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the bus conductor of opposite parties in not accepting the photo identity pension card shown by the Complainant for giving concession provided by the government for senior citizens?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been placed by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A4 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Ex. B1 to B3 documents are marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record placed by the parties.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The Complainant contended that he being a senior citizen and retired employee shown his pension I.D. card to the Opposite parties bus conductor to avail concession in bus fare provided to the senior citizens, but the bus conductor did not accept the pension identity card though the same clearly proved his date of birth as 24-5-1954 and he retired from service on 31-5-2012. Therefore, the Complainant proved deficiency in service towards him by the Opposite parties bus conductor and he is entitled for the claims.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for Opposite parties contended that as per Ex. B3 pension photo identity card is not acceptable. Therefore, the conductor not accepted. Hence, no deficiency in service and the compliant is liable to be dismissed.
9. After going through the contentions and the documentary evidence placed by the parties we see no merit in the contention of learned counsel for Opposite parties.
It is admitted by the Opposite parties that the Complainant travelled in bus TNA : 158459 from Kadapa on 27-8-2016 and the conductor of the bus not accepted the service pension identity card shown by the Complainant to avail 25% concession in bus fare and collected full fare on the pretext that the pension identity card shown by the Complainant is not acceptable as per publication issued by the Executive Director of APSRTC. Opposite parties filed publication of Executive Director (Operation) APSRTC dt. 2-8-2016 and the same is marked as Ex. B3. A perusal of Ex. B3 publication issued by the Executive Director (Opeations), Vijayawada reveal that the persons who completed 60 y ears are senior citizens and are entitled to avail 25% concession by showing PAN card, Voter ID card, ration card and Passport and apart from Aadar card from 01-7-2016. In this case the Complainant travelled in Opposite parties bus on 27-8-2016 from Kadapa to Vempalli. He had his service pension identity card with I.D. No. 25635, he has shown the above pension I.D card which contains his date of birth as 24-5-1954 with photo. But the conductor of the bus did not accept the same and not given concession of Rs. 25% in bus fare to the Complainant who is a senior citizen. As on the date of journey in bus by the Complainant he was aged 62 years. A person who completed 60 years is called as senior citizen. Even as per Ex. B3 filed by Opposite parties a senior citizen is entitled to avail concession by showing his passport, PAN card, Voter card and Ration card. All the above cards contain date of birth of the person to show whether he is senior citizen or not. Though the name of service pension card is not mentioned in Ex. B3 but the said card also contains the date of birth of the person and his retirement from service. The said card is issued by the Government authorities to draw pension. Thus it is valid document to the senior citizen to prove his date of birth and date of retirement and its validity cannot be questioned on flimsy grounds. This service pension I.D card is no way lesser than to PAN card, Voter card, passport and ration card to prove the person is a senior citizen and to avail concession while travelling in bus on par with PAN card, passport and ration card. But the conductor of the Opposite parties bus bluntly refused to accept the pension I.D. card shown by the Complainant to avail concession as senior citizen. Thus Complainant was deprived for availing facility provided by the Government to him by the bus conductor, who has responsible duty towards senior citizens. He had shown scant respect towards Complainant, who is a senior citizen in not helping him in availing the benevolent concession provided by the Government. Thus he caused mental agony and humiliation to the Complainant before co-passengers in the bus. Thus there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties bus conductor and the same has been proved by the Complainant and complainant is entitled for the reliefs’ against the Opposite parties for the acts done by their employee. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
10. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10/- towards excess fare collected from the Complainant, to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a. till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 2nd January 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of bus ticket dt. 27-8-2016 issued by APSRTC.
Ex. A2 P/c of Eenadu local edition dt. 25-8-2016.
Ex. A3 P/c of booking confirmation letter issued by APSRTC, dt. 22-8-2016.
Ex. A4 P/c of pension ID card No. 25635 of V. Ramakrishna Raju, issued by the State Govt. of A.P.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: -
Ex. B1 P/c of letter addressed to Dist. Consumer forum, Kadapa from Dept Manager, Hindupur Depot, dt. 15-10-2016.
Ex. B2 P/c of letter addressed from conductor No. 403303, Hindupur to Depot Manager, hindupur Depot, dt. 17-10-2016.
Ex. B3 P/c of publication from Executive Director, (Operation), APSRTC, Vijayawada, d. 2-8-2016.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) V. Ramakrishnama Raju, S/o V. Ramaraju, aged 62 years,
D.No. C-02-504, APHB Colony, Kadapa, Kadapa District
2) Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P
