Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/2824

Sri. Ramakrishna Bhat Aged about 58 YearsS/o. S.N. Bhat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Kesineni Tours and Travels - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Sai Kiran R.

21 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 17.12.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 21.06.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.2824/2013

DATED THIS THE 21^st JUNE OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Ramakrishna Bhat

Aged about 58 years,

S/o S.N.Bhat, No.15-22-

1433/2, ‘Vanashree’,

15^th road, Lower Bendoor

near St.Theresa School, Mangaluru-02

 

By Adv.Sri.Saikiran.R     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

M/s.Kesineni Tours and Travels, No.22, JVA Complex,

T.S.P.Road, Kalasipalyam, Bengaluru-02.

Rep.by its Authorized person

 

By Adv.Sri.Hareeshchandra.M

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,15,160/- with interest towards uncomfortable journey, taxi charges, lost of Samsung mobile phone with sim, correspondences, medical ailment and cost and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he is a retired banker who is a permanent resident of Mangaluru city. It is the case of the Complainant that, on 29.12.12, he had booked two online tickets engaging the services of Op for travelling of his wife and son from Kalasipalya, Bengaluru to Borivali East Mumbai by paying Rs.2,260/- (Rs.1,130/- per ticket). However to the shock of Complainant’s family members, the Op’s bus which travelled to the Bengaluru’s outskirt suffered from breaking of the front left windscreen. Instead of replacing the broken windscreen glass, the Op continued with the trip by tying a bed-sheet around the front part of the bus in an unscientific way. The Op failed to respond to the request of the travellers and continued with uncomfortable journey. The Complainant further submits that, the Op’s bus was unable to travel at usual speed and there was considerable delay in reaching Mumbai. Furthermore, the Op suddenly announced that the trip would be terminated at Chembur instead of Borivali East since the bus has to go nearby garage. The dropping at Chembur was inconvenient for the Complainant’s family since they had to again travel to Borivali. The Op failed to make any alternative arrangement even after many request and meanwhile the Complainant had tried to contact the help-line of the Op but was of no assistance. To the utter shock of the Complainant, his family members were forced out of the bus at Chembur when they started to insist on alternative transport arrangement at the cost of the Op. The staff of Op ha used abusive language and forced them out of the bus. The Complainant’s wife and young son who were already tired and helpless had to fend for themselves at this odd situation and in such of acts of forcing them out of the bus, they lost a small bag containing their Samsung mobile phone in the bus. When the Complainant’s family members tried to approach the staff of the bus immediately and inform them about theira small bag containing mobile phone, the staff were rude and asked them to go away without even verifying by announcing to do whatever they can. The Complainant’s family had to engage a taxi for their further journey to the actual destination that is Borivali east which cost them a sum of Rs.400/-. The Complainant further submits that, by now he realized that his requests or information to the helpline of Op was of no use and the local staff of the bus were rude and unruly. The Complainant having no other alternative had to approach the local police station to register his complaint of losing his mobile instrument. The Complainant further submits that, he is suffering from cardio-vascular disease and was unable to with stand the anxiety, pressure and negligent attitude of the Op towards his wife and child. He had to seek medical attention to his ailments for additional exposure to the above situation. Furthermore, the place of residence being Mangaluru, he found the follow up of the legal course of action against Op either at Bengaluru or Mumbai cumbersome given his medical ailments and the distance from the place of residence. However, he had continued to communicate to the Op inspite of his weak health and difficulty in pursuing from Mangaluru. The Complainant had immediately communicated the entire events vide emails and then had firstly followed up with the local office of Op at Bengaluru who directed the Complainant to interact with their main office at Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, he had written letter dtd.08.01.13 to Op narrating the entire event and seeking compensation for his grievances and again issued a reminder letter dtd.05.02.13. Though duly served on Op, the Op has failed to respond and set right the grievances of the Complainant. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear and filed version stating that, complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either on law or on facts. Further submits that, service availed from the Op is for wife and son of the Complainant. Wife and son of the Complainant have not given any authorization to file the complaint to the Complainant. On this ground also complaint is liable to be dismissed. Op further submits that, the trip was terminated at Chembur instead of Borivilli east since the bus has to go to nearby garage. Further submits that, its bus suffered breakage of left windscreen due to air crack at the early hours of trip i.e. on 30.12.12. The said breakage of left windscreen occurred due to air crack suffered and the said air crack was only a technical problem which was inevitable from the hands of the Op. When this fact has been noticed by the driver of the said bus, in view of safety of the passengers, the driver of the Op terminated the trip at Chembur instead of the destination point Mumbai. The distance between Chembur and Mumbai is only 25 kms.  Further submits that, Complainant while booking the tickets had agreed to the terms & conditions of the Op that “dropping point keeps changing based on traffic regulations and beyond any control. The point is an approximate indication but not compulsory. Kesineni reserves the right to change the route and/or dropping points without any prior notice.” Op further submits that, “Kesineni will not take responsibility in the event of loss or damage of the passenger luggage.”  Further submits that, since the trip was terminated at Chembur instead of reaching Borivali east, that the passengers can claim for refund of money on a prorota basis at the Op’s booking counters situated at the origin or the destination of the journey and the Op will not make any alternative arrangements to travel for breakdowns enroute. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. To substantiate the case, the Complainant and his wife filed separate affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A12. The Manager & Authorized Signatory of Op filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-B1 to B4. Both filed written arguments.  Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: Partly in the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Op. With regard to locus standi of the Complainant to file this complaint before this forum has been challenged by Op stating that, the said bus ticket has been booked by the Complainant for his wife and son. Since his son and wife has not given any authorization to him to file this complaint, complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed. In this context, we placed reliance on the contents of Ex-A1 which is ‘e-ticket’, wherein message has been sent to the Complainant in respect of confirming the ticket. In this context, he has paid an amount of Rs.1,130/- each. When the amount has been deposited from the account of the Complainant for booking the said ticket, in this context, we do not find any substance in the contention taken by Op. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant is very well maintainable. 

 

          8. With regard to the deficiency of service in respect of travelling in the said bus, Complainant has specifically pleaded in para 3 of his complaint at (i) to (v) reads thus:

(i) To the shock and dismay of the Complainants family members were forced to travel in a bus whose left wind screen was removed and was open. The staff of the Op had covered the open space with bedsheets rapped in an unscientific method. The Op had failed to replace the broken wind-screen even after many requests.

(ii) That apart, the bus was able to reach Mumbai city only after considerable delay the Op miserably failed to drop the Complainants family members at the designated stop at Borivali east, the trip was terminated at Chembur to inconvenience of the Complainant instead of the actual Borivili east.

(iii) Furthermore, the Complainants family members were unceremonious forced out of the bus when protested at terminating the trip prematurely at chembur. In such melee, the Complainant had lost a bag containing Samsung mobile phone instrument.

(iv) The Complainants family had to engage a private taxi costing them Rs.400/- to reach Borivili east.

(v) The Complainant and his family members were subjected to anxiety and shock under this situation and also had to make many telephone calls to family members and the Op for making enquiries and requests.

 

9. With regard to the crack on left windscreen is not disputed by Op. It is also not in dispute that, all the passengers including Complainant’s wife and son were descended at Chembur instead of the destination point at Mumbai, which is about 25 kms. If the driver of the said bus terminated the trip at Chembur instead of destination point at Mumbai, he ought to have informed the Complainant’s wife and son. But he did not do so. When he immediately terminated the trip at Chembur, certainly wife and son of the Complainant put in a panic as the Op has not make any alternative arrangements to them to reach Mumbai, wherein they ought to have reach their destination.  This itself amounts to negligent/deficiency of service on the part of Op. The distance is not 1 or 2 kms, the distance from Chembur to Mumbai is about 25 kms. With regard to the ‘dropping point keeps changing based on traffic regulations and beyond any control’ are concerned, it is not key ground to deny the claim of the Complainant as there was no any traffic issue to terminate the trip at Chembur instead of destination point at Mumbai. But anyhow, Complainant’s family opted the taxi service bearing registration No.MH03 AT1464 for their further journey to the actual destination that is Borivali East which cost them a sum of Rs.400/-. Instead of workout the prorata basis for refund of ticket amount, we feel it just and proper to order to pay the said amount of Rs.400/- being the amount spent for availing the taxi service which is supported by document Ex-A2 i.e. taxy receipt. With regard to quality of service and also inconvenience caused by the Op to the Complainant’s wife and son, they have sought for an amount of Rs.1,15,160/- which has been categorized in para 10 of the complaint with regard to the uncomfortable & unsafe journey, taxi charges for further journey, loss of Samsung mobile phone, loss of SIM, cost of letters, telephone and emails, compensation for causing aggravation of medial ailment, exposing to insecurity and unsafe journey, creating anxiety and agony, cost of litigation. Expect for paying an amount of Rs.400/- being taxi service, rest of the claim are not supported with valid reasons. In the absence of it, we proposed Op to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the compensation in respect of uncomfortable & unsafe journey etc., along with Rs.400/- being paid for the taxi service, we hope ends of justice would met sufficiently. We also fixed an amount of Rs.2,000/- being the cost of litigation. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 partly in the affirmative.

 

10. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

 

          2. Op is directed to pay an amount of Rs.400/- to the Complainant being the cost of the taxi service availed by the wife and son of the Complainant.

 

3. Op is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.

 

4. We also direct Op to realize the said amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

         

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 21^st June 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Ramakrishna Bhat, who being the complainant was examined. 

Smt.Rekha Bhat, who being the complainant’s wife was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Online ticket
Ex-A2	Receipt
Ex-A3	Bill of mobile
Ex-A4	Police station acknowledgement
Ex-A5	Letter dtd.08.01.13
Ex-A6	Postal receipt
Ex-A7	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A8	Letter dtd.05.02.13
Ex-A9	Postal receipt
Ex-A10	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A11	Email
Ex-A12	Medical records

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Y.Srinivasa Rao, who being the Manager & Authorized Signatory of Op was examined.

 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Ex-B1	Photos
Ex-B2	Seating chart
Ex-B3	Terms & conditions
Ex-B4	Letter dtd.01.03.14

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT