IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 207/2013
Saturday, the 27th day of February 2016.
Petitioners : 1) Ditty Jose Thomas,
S/o. Thomas,
Puthenpurayil House,
Ayarkunnam P.O.
Ayarkunnam Village,
Ayarkunnam Kara, Kottayam.
2) Francis Thomas,
-do-
(Adv. P.V. Joseph).
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Kallada Tours and Travels (Head Office)
Administrative Office,
Kallada Tours and Travels,
Near Mass Theater,
Irinjalakkuda P.O.
Pin – 680 121.
2) Kallada Tours and Travels,
Branch Office,
Near Axis Bank,
Baker Junction, Kottayam.
(Adv. Francis Jacob K.)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 26/07/2013 is as follows.
The complainant had availed service from the opposite party for journey from Pondicherry to Kottayam on 09/07/20136 by the contract carriage bus service operated by the opposite party. According to the complainant, he had booked two seats for himself and his brother Francis Thomas for travelling from Pondicherry to Kottayam on 09/07/2013 vide ticket No. EPNDY 1083 and paid Rs.2,700/- for the same as fare. The reporting time was 9.15 PM and the departure time was 9.30 P.M. on 09/07/2013. And the boarding pass was issued to seat G3 and G4. However due to Hartal declared by some political parties in Kerala, the complainant was informed to report at 7.30 P.M. So that bus could reach Kottayam before 6 A.M. The complainant boarded a vehicle from Pondicherry and reached Villupuram to board the bus KL-45 H 2784 Multaxil Volvo, contract carriage bus operated by the opposite party starting from Madras to Changanacherry. But the bus was started from Madras at 10.30 P.M. much delayed after the scheduled time. Though, the complainant and his younger brother Francis Thomas arrived at Villupuram much ahead of the scheduled time and waited there for the arrival of the bus and boarded the bus. But due to delay, the bus was not reached Kottayam before the commencement of the Hartal time. According to the complainant, the delay was occurred due to the opposite party’s failure to keep the time schedule and due to delayed departure from Madras, the driver of the bus stopped the trip midway at Kumali Check post. And the passengers were forced to stay at Kumali. According to the complainant, he had approached the driver of the bus and demanded to make alternate arrangement for their onwards journey to Kottayam. But the driver of the bus refused to make any alternative arrangements and informed that the bus is stopped the journey at Kumaly and is returning back to Madras. The opposite party did not make any arrangement for the passengers boarding and lodging. The complainant and his younger brother became exhausted and were constrained to take a room in a hotel for their stay for their just refreshment and incurred expense of Rs.350/- towards room rent and Rs.650/- for their food till 6.00 P.M. in the evening. The complainant had to make alternative arrangement for travelling to Kottayam by K.S.R.T.C. and the ticket fare for two persons is Rs.180/-. According to the complainant, the services provided by the opposite parties are defective and substandard and suffers with deficiency and it is amounts to unfair trade practice. And the complainants suffered damages on account of such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties jointly filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the opposite parties, the cause of action has not occurred in the jurisdiction of this Forum. Opposite parties admitted that they are interstate bus operators. According to the opposite parties, they never informed to the complainants to report at 7.30 P.M. on 09/07/13 so as to reach Kottayam at 6 A.M. The bus operators cannot on their own, advance the bus timing as there are other people who have booked tickets to other destinations other than Kottayam. Apart from the complainants there were ever so many passengers in the said bus plying from Madras to Kottayam. None other than these complainants and another two passengers who booked tickets along with them have got such a case. None of the crew or the passengers therein knew about the Hartal declared by some political party on 10/07/2013 when they departed from Madras. There was no delay in the starting of the bus as alleged by the complainants and normal traffic blocks in the city cannot be avoided by the bus operators. As there was a temple festival on the way in the city itself there occurred some delay which is unavoidable and beyond the control of the bus operators. The scheduled arrival time of the bus at Kottayam is at 10.00 A.M. The Hartal was from 6.30 A.M. in the morning and in any view of the matter the bus could not reach Kottayam before the starting of the Hartal. At Kumali, the bus was forcefully stopped by the agitators. The driver of the bus had assured the passengers therein that after the Hartal the bus has to come to Kottayam to board the passengers who have booked the tickets on that day from Kottayam. As it was a Hartal no alternative arrangements could be made. It is the ‘Act of God’ and the opposite parties have not done anything wilfully and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The allegation that the opposite parties did not make any arrangement of boarding and lodging is false because the complainants are left the scene after abusing and threatening the driver of the bus. For the other passengers who opted to stay in the bus and continue journey, available arrangements were made to rest and fresh them up in the morning. According to the opposite parties there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the Proof Affidavits of both sides and Ext.A1 to A3 documents. And the depositions of the complainant as Pw1 and the deposition of the Manager of the 2nd opposite party as Dw1.
Point No.1
According to the complainant, he availed the service of the opposite party by travelling in their bus on 09/07/2013. He booked 2 seats for himself and his brother for the journey on 09/07/2013 from Pondicherry to Kottayam. According to the complainant, the bus was not able to reach Kottayam before the commencement of the Hartal as agreed and the delay was due to the opposite parties failure to keep the time schedule. According to the opposite parties, due to Hartal the bus could not reach destination in time. According to the complainant opposite party informed that due to the Hartal the bus will start its journey before 2 hours of schedule departure. Though the complainant arrived at the informed time, but opposite party started the journey only at 10.30 P.M. Opposite party denied the averment of the complaint that they informed the complainant to report at 7.30 P.M. Nothing has been placed on record to prove the said averment of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the copy of the ticket. In Ext.A1, the departure time is shown as 9.30 P.M. According to the opposite party, the bus was started at 9.30 itself, the schedule time from the starting point. Admittedly, there was Hartal declared by some political parties. During cross examination, Pw1 admitted that due to Hartal, on the said day there was traffic obstruction at Kumali. In page 5 of the deposition he admitted that the employees of the opposite parties informed the complainant that after Hartal the bus would continue its journey to the destination. The complainant has no case that the other vehicles were continued their journey from Kumali to Kottayam. Admittedly, due to Hartal the complainant could not continue his journey from Kumali to Kottayam, because there was no way of conveyance, he continued his journey only after Hartal in a K.S.R.T.C bus. In our view, complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 found accordingly.
PointNo.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is dismissed. No cost ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of bus ticket dtd.09/07/2013 for Rs.2,700/-
Ext.A2 : Advance receipt No.175 dtd.10/0713 issued by Taj Tourist Home.
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of bus ticket for Rs. 182/- issued by K.S.R.T.C.
Documents of opposite party
Nil
Witness
Pw1 : Francis Thomas
Dw1 : Rajeevan K.R.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
