BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 7th April 2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.:30/2016
Complainant/s:
The Head Master, Sacred Heart English Medium School, Vidya Nagar, Hubballi 580031.
(By Sri.B.G.Salimath, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s:
The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Hubballi Division, Gokul Road, Hubballi 580030
(By Sri.V.B.Dhavaleshwar, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondent to refund Rs.60,420/- along with interest @18% P.A. from the date of return of journey till realization, to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the expenses incurred for communication and to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for harassment, cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is running a school as such as a routine in academic year to conduct study/amusement tour for his students planned to decide to go Mysore along with teachers and staff on 18.12.2014. For the said purpose the complainant hired 2 buses belongs to the respondent by paying initial/advance amount of Rs.1,38,000/- vide bill no.014513 dtd.17.12.2014 and have entered into a casual contract. The trip was to be commenced on 18.12.2014 at 20.00 hours and end on 21.12.2014. But on 18.12.2014 the buses arrived the school at the starting point of journey at 22.00 hours by delay of 2 hours on the very beginning of the journey. While return journey the bus tyre was punctured at Shravanabelagola on 21.12.2014, then the driver of the bus took the bus to Shravanabelagola depot to get repaired the punctured tyre, thereby there was a delay of 2 hours. The buses arrived back to the starting point of journey of complainant’s school premises at 23.58 hours. After alighting the students in the school premises at 23.15 the buses requires only 20 minutes to reach the depot of the respondent. But the respondent’s CCSWB counter NWKRTC reports that the vehicles arrived at 1.55 hours the said report also discloses charges of Rs.14,000/- for delay of 4.30 hours is deducted from the advance amount. The delay was due to late in arriving the buses at the starting point and also due to the tyre puncture at Shravanabelagola while return journey. Even then the respondents have deducted Rs.14,000/- as late charges which is unfair trade practice against the terms of casual contract entered on 17.12.2014 between complainant and respondent. Due to this the complainant management put to lot of harassment. The complainant on several times approached the respondent and requested orally to refund Rs.46,420/- + Rs.14,000/- =Rs.60,420/- but respondent directed its cashier to return only Rs.46,420/- out of initial amount Rs.1,38,000/- collected. Delay of 4.30 hours was not on the part of complainant it is on the part of the respondent both at late arrival during starting day as well as due to puncture of tyre at Shravanabelagola. Despite notice dtd.10.01.2016 the respondent neither replied nor refund the amount which amount to deficiency in service. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the complaint as brought is not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further respondent taken contention that the tour transaction were entered by Secretary, Sacred Heart Education Society. While the Head Master was made as complainant in the cause title while the complaint was signed by Secretary Sacred Heart Education Society. Hence, on the said point itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further the respondent denied all the complaint averments and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. Among such other denials and admissions the respondent taken contention that the buses on the starting day arrived at scheduled time and left the school premises at scheduled hours of 20.00. Further the respondent also denied while return journey on 21.12.2014 there caused 2 hours late due to tyre puncture at Shravanabelagola & contended that there was no delay as alleged and replacement of punctured tyre well in time when the students went for sight seeing at Shravanabelagola and at no point additional time was taken for repair. The bus arrived at 12.30 hours on 22.12.2014. There was a delay of 4.30 hours as per circular the respondent officials deducting the amount for delay informed the complainant to receive the remaining amount but complainant did not received the balance amount with a malafide intention. The Secretary of the complainant education society signed the log sheet by mentioning time and date of arrival as 12.30 hours on 22.12.2014. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The respondent deducted the late fee charges as per circular of respondent corporation and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Accordingly
- Accordingly
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant’s school have hired 2 buses on 17.12.2014 and took the buses on 18.12.2014 and have returned on 22.12.2014.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether there was delay in arriving exceeding the contract hours of journey & deduction of the amount for additional hours by the respondent amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
8. As contended by the respondent the complainant Head Master entered with contract of hiring bus with the respondent and he has been arrayed as complainant and the complaint is signed by the Secretary of the school. But however school is entitled for refund of the remaining advance amount. Hence no much importance is given to technicality of the complaint and that defect is overlooked.
9. The very contention of the complainant is that on the starting day instead of starting of journey at 20.00 hours the bus arrived the school premises at 22.00 hours by delay of 2 hours and even on returning journey on 21.12.2014 at Shravanabelagola the bus tyre was punctured and the driver took 2 hours to get repair the punctured tyre as such 2 hours delayed on the retuning day bus arrived at school premises at 12.30 hours after alighting the students the bus left to the depot where at depot it was reported arrival of bus at 1.55 hours though it was 20 minutes to reach the depot as such delay of 04.30 hours not due to the complainant’s instance but at the instance of the drivers only and deduction of Rs.14,000/- is not proper and amounts to deficiency in service. But respondent denied the same by contending that, the bus on the starting day arrived the school premises in time and also denied on 21.12.2014 at Shravanabelagola the tyre was punctured and the drivers taken 2 hours to get it ready the punctured tyre hence there was a delay of 2 hours and relied on log sheet Ex.R8 and invite the attention of this Forum to the same, wherein it on 18.12.2014 as well as on 22.12.2014 the complainant’s persons endorsed their signature admitting on 18.12.2014 the complainant left the school premises at 08.30 and on 22.12.2014 bus arrived school premises at 12.30. The signature of the complainant are at Ex.R8 (a) and at R8(b) respectively on 18.12.2014 & 22.12.2014 & contended the respondent as per Ex.R3 properly charged additional charge of Rs.14,000/- for excess time by deducting 4 hours at the discretion of the respondent as per the circular Ex.R4 and contended the charges were levied in accordance with the circular, no excess is charged and hence there is no deficiency in service as alleged.
10. By above contention and denial by perusal of Ex.R7 & 8 it clearly shows that on the starting day the buses arrived the departure premises of complainant school well in time. So also perusal of the same exhibits on 22.12.2014 the buses arrived the school premises at 12.30 AM but as per circular and starting time is taken into consideration the buses ought to have reach the school premises at 20 hours on 21.12.2014 as such there is 4 hours delay. Taking into consideration of 2 buses there is totally 8 hours delay, but the respondent waived of totally 4 hours i.e. 2 hours to each to the buses in accordance with the circular Ex.R4. Even the contention of the complainant is taken at Shravanabelgola tyre was punctured and driver had taken 2 hours to get it repaired looking into the waived of 4 hours as per Ex.R4 the respondent have not charged additional charges as contended by the complainant for punctured tyre.
11. Summing up the above evidence charging of Rs.14,000/- in all is not improper and in accordance with the circular and as such respondents have not committed deficiency in service as alleged.
12. By endorsement on Ex.R7 and 8 respectively Ex.R7 (a) and (b) and Ex.R8 (a and b) by the complainant it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to arrival of bus to the school premises at 20.00 hours on 18.12.2014 and arrival of the bus at 12.30 AM on 22.12.2014. As contended by the complainant the respective buses reached the depot as per CCSWB Counter NWKRTC report at 1.55 Hours is no way concerned to complainant but it is look after of the respondent and the driver of the buses as per the evidence and contents of reply notice by the respondent Ex.R2 it reveals the respondent corporation has imposed Rs.6,472/- against the drivers for late arrival to the depot from the school premises to depot. Under those circumstances it is evident that circular is applicable equally to all public as well as the employees of the respondent corporation and the corporation has not discriminates.
13. The complainant in his prayer prays for return of Rs.60,420/- after deducting the hire charge out of the advance money Rs.138000/- i.e. Rs.46420 + Rs.14000/-. By the above evidence and discussions it is evident that Rs.14000/- deducted is proper and for that the complainant is not entitled. The complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.46,420/- only. The said Rs.46,420/- was with the respondent as per Ex.R5. Though the respondents have intimated the complainant to receive the same through SMS as per Ex.R5 as well as through reply notice Ex.R2 the complainant did not collected the same. Hence, on this count also the respondents have not committed any fault and there is no deficiency in service. Hence, complainant is only entitled for refund of the said amount without interest. Since the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service against respondent complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost of the proceedings.
14. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 accordingly.
15. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed. No order as to costs. The complainant is directed to approach the respondent immediately and to receive Rs.46,420/- without any delay. In the event the complainant approaches the respondent to release the amount.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 7th day of April 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
