BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Wednesday, 9th November 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 34 / 2016
J. Seshadri, S/o Jaripiti Subanna, aged about 44 years,
D.No. 5/30, Devalam Street, Behind Saibaba Temple,
Vaimpalle (V) & Mandal, Kadapa District. (AP). ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pulivendual, Kadapa District.
2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa Region, Kadapa. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 01-11-2016 in the presence of Sri M. Nagaraju, Advocate for complainant and Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for O.P.2 and O.P.1 remained absent on 9-8-2016 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to impose a fine of Rs. 50,000/- to the Opposite parties towards deficiency in service and pas such other order which this forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows: - the Complainant booked four RTC bus tickets on 4-6-2015 from Vempalli to Guntur by paying Rs. 1,038/- from RTC Booking counter at Vempally out of one CAT card belong to him for the journey on 9-6-2015 night in RTC bus service No. 6155. The Complainant reached RTC bus stand Vempally along with other three passengers at 8.00 p.m and boarded the bus but to their dismay some people belonged to Kadiri town were seating in their reserved seat Nos. 1 to 3 and when he quested as to why they are seating in the seats reserved to them they replied they were also allotted to them at Kadiri. He approached the conductor and requested to vacate the Kadiri passengers from their seats but conductor refused to do so giving evasive replies. He contacted Pulivendula Depot Manager in phone who enquired the conductor about the ticket details still the conductor could not allot seats them. Thereafter the Depot Manager, Pulivendula switched off his phone. He also made phone call to toll fee No. 18002004599 and 9177228886. They also contacted the conductor but still no use, to allot seats to them. He travelled in one seat and one CAT card upto Guntur with adjusting his children in a single seat with great difficult up to Guntur. He made to suffer a lot of humiliation and harassment. His wife Smt. J. Suseela, Vice-President of Vempalli mandal, she was also suffered in travelling. The Complainant was suffering from pain in his waist and also with sugar disease and taking treatment. The Opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to allot seats to them and they are negligent in their duties and he also addressed a letter to take disciplinary action against RTC conductor. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as the conductor for bus service No. 6155 on 9-6-2015 not allotted reserved seats 1 to 3 to him and his family members. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs’.
3. O.P.1 remained exparte on 9-8-2016.
4. O.P.2 filed counter denying the allegations regarding deficiency in service on the part of bus conductor but admitted that the Complainant reserved the seats 1 to 3 in bus service No. 6155 on 4-6-2015 for the travel on 9-6-2015 from Vempalli to Guntur. However it is further averred that the Complainant and his family members were allotted seat Nos. 13, 14 and 36 and they travelled happily from Vempally to Guntur but the Complainant filed this complaint on baseless allegations as his wife is President of Vempalli Panchayat. On the complaint by the Complainant to Pulivendula Depot Manager action was taken against the bus driver and punishment of an amount of Rs. 1467/- was imposed to be recovered from his salary. Thus there is no deficiency in service as seats were allotted to the Complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence reported by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A8 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite party No. 2 Ex. B1 is marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the Complainant that he and his family members were put to suffer and humility though they reserved seat Nos. 1 to 3 in bus service No. 6155 from Vempalli to Guntur as their seats were occupied by some other passengers and failed to vacate them from seats and allot to Complainant by bus crew. Therefore, the Opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant and costs.
9. Per contra it is contended on behalf of O.P.2 since the Complainant party was allotted other seats no inconvenience was caused to them. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. After going through the contentions we see no substance in the contention of O.P.2.
11. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant booked three seats i.e. 1 to 3 in Opposite parties bus service No. 6155 on 4-6-2015 to travel from Vemaplly to Guntur on the night of 9-6-2015. It is also not in dispute between the parties the seats 1 to 3 were occupied by some other persons and the conductor of the bus failed to vacate them. Though, O.P.2 contended that seat Nos. 13, 14 and 36 were allotted to the Complainant, but no proof is placed to show that the above seats were allotted to the Complainant instead of seat Nos. 1 to 3. Even as per version of O.P.2 the bus driver was punished for recovery an amount of Rs. 1,467/- from his salary for dereliction of duty. If such is the case it can be presumed since the bus conductor or driver who are incharge of the bus was negligent and failed to do proper service to the Complainant who reserved the tickets for his journey along with his family members on 9-6-2015 from Vempally to Guntur. The Complainant is a genuine passenger who booked the tickets and got reserved seat Nos. 1 to 3 in bus service No. 6155 at Vempalli to travel from Vempally to Guntur on 9-6-2015. But to their astonishment those 1 to 3 seats reserved by Complainant were occupied by some other passengers and they were not vacated by the bus crew, even at the request of the Complainant. It is the primary duty of the bus conductor to see that the reserved passengers shall be accommodated in reserved seats and travel comfortable. He cannot adjust those reserved seats to some other persons without consent of the Complainant or against the will of the Complainant. In this case even the Complainant requested the conductor he failed to vacate the passengers from the seats 1 to 3 reserved by the Complainant for their comfortable journey and made them to suffer to travel from Vempally to Guntur. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the conductor of bus service No. 6155 of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 for which act the Opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant, which we quantified at Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
12. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the Complainant towards deficiency in service to him, and shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay the above amounts within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 9th November 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 APSRTC, Reservation Chart for Service No.6155, Journey date 9-6-2015
service name KDR-VJA, Super Luxury, Driver S. Neelaiah.
Ex: A2 Onward Journey ticket No.41846511, allotted to the Petitioner/
Complainant with seat No.4 Super Luxury, from Vempalli to Guntur,
Service Code 6155/KDR-VJA.
Ex: A3 Onward journey Ticket No.41846330, Seat no.1,2 & 3 allotted to others.
Ex: A4 Complainant Navya Cat Card.
Ex: A5 Complainant complaint copy, dated 15-6-2015 addressed to Regional Manager, Kadapa and Depot Manager of Pulivendula, APSRTC, Kadapa District.
Ex: A6 A letter issued by the Depot Manager, Pulivendula vide Reference
No.02/95(115)/2015 Pulivendula in favour of the complainant.
Ex: A7 The Complainant Medical Reports at Guntur of A.P. pages from 7to 16.
Ex: A8 The Complainant Employee I.D. card issued by the Assistant Director of
Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Kadapa.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No. 2: -
Ex: B1 Letter from the Depot Manager, to the Personnel Officer, APSRTC, Kadapa,
Dt. 25-7-2016.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for O.P2.
3) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pulivendual, Kadapa District
B.V.P
