BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 1038 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.118 OF 2003 DISTRICT FORUM CHITTOOR

Between:

V.Sreeramulu Naidu S/o Krishnaiah Naidu
Aged about 44 yrs, Hindu, Advocate
8-142, Janda Street, Chittoor

Appellants/complainants

A N D

1. The Depot Manager
Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Kempe Gowda Bus
Station, Majestic, Bangalore
Karnataka State

2. Sri N.T.Kumar Velu
Aged 44 yrs, Karnataka Road Transport

Corporation, Hindu, Driver No.4584, Depot II
Bangalore Central Division, Karnataka State

3. Sri H.K.Kumar,
Aged about 42 yrs, Hindu, Conductor No.3751
Depot II, KSRTC, Bangalore Central Division
Karnataka State Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.C.Krishnan

Counsel for the Respondent Sri N.P.Sangam

QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&

SRI R.LAXMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND NINE



Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Laxminarsimha Rao, Member)
***

The unsuccessful complainant in C.D.No.118 of 2003 had preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Chittoor passed o 17,9.2005.

The facts of the case in narrow compass are as follows:

The appellant is an advocate by profession. His father and two brothers are also advocates. On 15.9.2002 the appellant and his family went to Bangalore by his Maruti car which encountered problem when they reached Bangalore. The car was sent to garage for repairs which required a week days time. The appellant and his family members stayed in Sheetal Hotel in Bangalore from 14.9.2002 to 16.9.2002 and on 16.9.2002 the appellant along with his family members and the car driver S.S.Babu boarded the bus bearing No.KA 01-F-7121 to return to Chittoor. The appellant purchased four tickers on reservation and a half ticket after boarding the bus for a total amount of Rs.450/-. On enquiry by the appellant as to by which time the bus would reach Chittoor the conductor of the bus replied that it would take 3 ½ hours to reach Chittoor. On 16.9.2002 the appellant had an appointment for dealing a case at 7.30 pm. The bus started at 3.05 p.m. at Bangalore. The respondents no.2 and 3 were not on good terms with the passengers of the bus. Without heeding to the request of the appellant and other passengers, the respondents no.2 and 3 stopped the bus at Green Park Hotel, Palamanar at 6.05 p.m. for refreshment.

The appellant and his family members and other passengers had refreshment in the hotel where the cost of the food items was very high compared to the rates in other hotels in Bangalore. Intentionally the respondents halted the bus there for more than 35 minutes. Thereon the respondent no.2 drove the bus at slow speed chit chatting with the respondent no.3 and on being questioned by the passengers, the respondents threatened them. The respondent no.2 stopped the bus at a dark place and asked all the passengers to report to any person about his style of driving since he was having 22 years of experience. The bus reached Chittoor at 7.50 p.m. The respondent no.2 did not heed to the request of the appellant to stop the bus at PCR College and compelled the appellant and his family memers to get down the bus at MSR Junction. Since the respondents rendered deficient service the appellant had approached the Distict Forum by filing the complaint.

The respondent no.1 resisted the claim denying the material averments of the complaint and stating that as per the guidelines of the KSRTRC, the crew of the bus stopped it at Mayuri Hotel near Mulabagalu for coffee break at about 5.15 p.m. The bus started at 5.40 p.m. Mayuri Hotel which is an approved bus stop. The respondents no.2 and 3 had filed affidavit stating that the journey on that day was very smooth and no untoward incident occurred between the passengers and the crew. Reply due to administrative reasons could not be given to the legal notice got issued by the appellant.

The respondent no.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the complaint reiterating the version filed by the respondent no.1.

The third respondent filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the respondent no.2.

The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that except the affidavit of the driver of his car, the appellant had not filed affidavits of other passengers of the bus.

The points for consideration are:


1. Whether there is any deficiency I service on the part of the
respondents no.1 to 3?



2. To what relief?



Point NO.1: The facts not in dispute are that o 16.9.2002 the appellant and his family members and driver S.S.Babu were proceeding in bus bearing O.KA 01-F-7121 from Bangalore to Chittoor and the bus reached Chittoor at 7.50 p.m. The appellant states that the bus was stopped at Green Park Hotel on 6.05 p.m. for refreshment whereas the respondents contend that the bus was stopped at Mayuri Hotel near Mulabagaulu. The respondents’ no.2 and 3 have filed their affidavits. The appellant and his driver have filed their affidavits. Hence it is a case of oath against oath. The respondents’ no.2 and 3 being the employees of KSRTC and working under the control of respondent no.1 stated that they did not exhibit rude behavior against any passengers and the journey on that day was smooth. The appellant submits that the respondents’ no.2 and 3 not only exhibited arrogant attitude against him, they had also exhibited the same attitude against the other passengers of the bus. Another contention of the appellants is that the respondent no.2 had not stopped the bus at PCR College near old bus station and made him and his family members to get down from the bus at MSR Junction.

In regard to the misbehavior of the respondents no.2 and 3 with the appellant and other passengers of the bus, the District Forum opined that affidavit of other passengers ought to have been filed. The respondents no.2 and 3 being the employees of a Road Transport Corproation are required to maintain cordial relationship with the passengers. The passengers have not been carried free of cost. On collecting the charges only, the passengers are permitted to travel in the bus. It is the minimum courtesy of the RTC and its employees to behave smoothly with the passengers of the bus. The appellant had categorically stated in his affidavit that the respondents no.2 and 3 had shouted at him and other passengers when they protested against the stopping of the bus at Green Park Hotel and also for not stopping the bus at PCR college at Old Bus Station Chittoor. This statement of the appellant is corroborated by the statement of the driver of the car. As aforesaid, the respondents are required to extend minimum courtesy to the passengers who travel by their buses. A passenger expects decent reception at the hands of the employees of the corporation in whose bus he makes his journey. The respondents no.2 and 3 had not behaved properly with the appellant on 16.9.2002 when he made his journey in bus from Bangalore to Chittoor.

The contention of the appellant that the bus was stopped at Green Park Hotel is not supported by any other evidence. In the same manner the statement of the respondents is also not supported by any evidence except the affidavit of the respondents’ no.2 and 3. A proposed hotels charged for route buses to stop for break was filed by the respondents which does not contain the Hotel Green Park. In the absence of any bill from Green Park where the bus was said to have been stopped against the request of the appellant and his family members, the contention that the respondents’ no.2 and 3 stopped the bus at Green Park Hotel cannot be believed.

The District Forum had given a finding where there was no plea from the parties in regard to the fact that the respondent no.3 insisted on the appellant to purchase a ticket for his son and keeping in view of the same the appellant had filed the complaint. This finding has no base nor did it draw any support from the circumstances of the case.

The District forum had not believed the version of the appellant that the appellant and his family members were asked by the respondents’ no.2 and 3 to get down at MSR Junction. This finding is also in our view is not reasonable. The appellant has concerned as he was not allowed to get down at PCR College near old Bus Station. It is to be remembered that not only the appellant, his wife and children and driver were also had to get down at MSR Junction. The affidavit of the appellant and that of the other passengers S.S.Babu employee established the fact that the respondents’ no.2 and 3 had not stopped the bus on 16.9.2002 at PCR College Old Bus Station, Chittoor. The appellant and his family members had to suffer mental tension and inconvenience due to the attitude of the respondents’ No.1 to 3, the District Forum oblivious of the fact that the S.S.Babu was also a passenger who travelled in the same bus as that of the appellant, unnecessarily insisted on affidavit of the other passengers of that bus which in our view is not sustainable. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons we hold there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents for which the appellant is entitled to be compensated. We award a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation against the respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the appellant.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The respondents no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the appellant. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.



PRESIDING MEMBER



MEMBER

Dt.13.05.2009