Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/1048/2011

P. MALARCHELVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - Opp.Party(s)

K. MARIMUTHU

10 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                    BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 1048/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No.195/2010 dated 28.7.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai(North) ]

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

1.Mrs P.Malarchelvi

W/o K.Marimuthu

New No. 25/13, Sami Naicken street,

Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002                 ..Appellant/complainant

                                         Vs

1.The Secretary to Government

Transport Department

Fort, Chennai 600 009

 

2. The Managing Director

TNSTC, Kumbakonam

Kumbakonam – 612 001

 

3. The Manager

TNSTC, Kumbakonam

Koyambedu Moffessal Bus Terminus

Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107                  ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant     : M/s K.Marimuthu

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/opp.party   : M/s Ravi Bharathi

Counsel for 2^nd and 3^rd Respondent/opp.party   : M/s P. Paramasiva doss

 

The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(North) in CC.No. 195/2010 dated 28.7.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (North) this commission made the following order.

 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.            The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.  

2.       The complainant along with her sisters  boarded the bus belonging to the 2^nd opposite party at Pudukottai on 29.3.2010 to reach Chennai, Tambaram  and the conductor of the bus informed that the bus would reach between  11.15 to 11.30 p.m at Tambaram. But actually the bus reached Tambaram at 12.10.p.m and thereby  the complainant could not get electrical train service beyond 12.00 hours to reach her place at Chetpet and thereby she was forced to spent Rs.300/- extra for engaging Auto and other bus and thereby alleging deficiency in service of opposite party claiming reliefs before the District Forum.

3.    The District Forum after an enquiry, accepting the contentions of the opposite parties dismissed the complaint as the complainant had miserably failed to prove the negligence or deficiency in service on the part  of the  opposite parties.

4.     Aggrieved by the impugned order,  the complainant had come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the hardship caused to the complainant and her sisters in the mid night being ladies and thereby the order of the District Forum could be set aside.

5.       We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard.

6.        It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant and her sisters boarded the bus from Pudukottai to Tambaram on 29.3.2010 on the belief that it could reach before 12 hours mid night on that day so as to catch the electrical train service to go to her place at Chetpet. But the bus had reached only at 12.10 p.m i.e beyond 40 minutes of the expected arrival at 11.30 p.m. It was alleged to be the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Whether this could be accepted is the point for consideration.

7.       The opposite parties contended that on the date, the bus was operated as a special bus to clear huge crowd to Chennai and there was no regular time fixed to reach Chennai from Pudukottai and there was no schedule time for special bus, more over since there was traffic jam due to un-expected rain fall, the driver could not reach in time. Further there was no intention on the part of the driver of the bus to cause any delay. These contentions are not denied or repudiated by the complainant in any way. On the grounds of appeal the details  pointed out in para 4 is as follows:

    Departure at Trichy   4.15

    Departure at Ulundurpet   7.15

    Departure at Villupuram    8.30

    Departure at Udaya Hotel   9.05

    Arrived at Tambarm 12.10

These duration of travels are usually normal in the course of journey and in an ordinary manner travelling in the State Express bus on reaching from Villupuram to Tambaram covering distance of 160 kms cannot be decided with the fixed hours for travel as the State Transport buses cannot run beyond particular speed and they have to look after the care of passengers’ life at the risk of government to make them reach their destination safely.

8.        When considering the time taken from Villupuram to reach Tambaram between 11.15 to 11.30  p.m and it had actually reached Tambaram by 12.10. p.m, they have taken 3 hours 40 minutes which cannot be considered as very abnormal or slow by taking into consideration of the traffic and distance between Villupuram to Tambaram Highway and in no circumstances mere delay of 40 minutes for the entire duration of journey between Pudukottai to Chennai after reaching Trichy at 4.15 p.m cannot be considered as negligence or deficiency in service when the particular bus being run as special bus having no specific time for departure or arrival or schedule which was arranged only to clear the heavy rush from Pudukottai to Chennai.

9.       The opposite parties relied upon the following precedents reported in

                 I (1991) CPJ 206  

    “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sec.14 (1)(d) “Negligence” – The complainant’s claim for compensation was based on the allegation that the delay in operation of the flight from Lucknow to Delhi and the alleged failure on the part of the appellant to provide to his wife proper medical facilities etc. were the factors responsible for her death on the next date – whether there was any negligence on the part of appellant? – (No)” 

                 II(1993) CPJ 214 (NC)

    “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sec.2(1)(g) – Deficiency – Railway – complainants booked special train from Singareni Collieries Railway Station to Guntur and back – Train late in departure and also in return journey – complaint filed alleging deficiency  - Railways do not guarantee timely running of special Train – No finding of negligence  - whether any deficiency in service on the part  of Railways? (No)”

    Hence in view of the same and the reasons already discussed and on perusal of the District Forum order in this regard, we find no error or infirmity or irregularity in the same and thereby this appeal deserves to be dismissed and as devoid of merit and accordingly,

          In the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai(North) in CC 195 /2010 dated 28.7.2011.

            No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER