BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                           C.C.No.34/2009

Dated this the  30^th  day of August 2017

(Date of Institution: 24.02.2009)

P. Arjunan                              

Son of  Ponnusamy                

No.11, School Street                

Kilparikalpet,   Bahour 

Puducherry.

….     Complainant

Vs

1.  Union of India rep. by its

     Chief Secretary, Puducherry.                   

2. The Director             

    Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd.,

    Puducherry.            

3. Rathinam, Driver

    Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd.,

    Beach Road, Puducherry.

4. Jothi, Conductor

    Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd.,

    Beach Road, Puducherry.

                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru. V. V. STEEPHEN,  B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

Tmt D. KAVITHA,  B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru S. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: For OP1 – Ex-Parte                      

For OP2 –  Thiru B. Mohandoss, Advocate

                                                          For OP3 and OP4: Tvl. A. Kanniappan and

K. Balaji, Advocates.

O R  D  E  R

(By Tmt. D. Kavitha, Member)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental torture and mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties and to pay a cost of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

          2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant  stated that he along with his relative one Ganesh and two children travelled in the bus Route No.17A, Registration No. PY 01 N 7987 belonging  to the Transport Corporation, the 2^nd opposite party herein, starting from Puducherry New Bus Stand  on 20.04.2008 at 7.15 p.m. vide Mudalarpet, Ariyankuppam, Reddichavady, Kirumampakkam, Pinachikuppam, Bahour, Arochikuppam, Melparikalpet and to the destination Kilparikkalpet school stopping at 8.15 p.m. on 20.04.2008.  The complainant further stated that he borrowed two full tickets bearing No. JA 414005, 414006 for Rs.5.50 each and two half tickets bearing No. EF 284914 and 284915 for Rs.3.00 each for travelling from the starting point of Puducherry New Bus Stand to the destination Kilparikkalpet School Stopping.  The bus stated at Puducherry New Bus Stand at 7.15 p.m. and reached Kilparikkalpet village stopping at 8.10 p.m.  and the Opposite Parties 3 and 4  asked them to get down when they took ticket upto Kilparikkalpet School Stopping.  When the same was questioned by the complainant, the OPs 3 and 4 scolded them with filthy words and also replied that "you go and report to anybody and no one can do anything against them".  The complainant stated that since they are helpless at that time they got down from the bus and reached their destination in the night with great fear.  Hence, by the deficiency in service of opposite parties, the complainant was mentally disturbed and created mental agony and torture.  Further, the complainant and the children were not able to attend their brother's 15^th day death ceremony and the things purchased to the value of Rs.20,000/- for the said function are all got wasted.  The complainant issued a legal notice on 05.05.2008.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 received the said notice, however, the notice sent to opposite parties 3 and 4 were returned as not claimed.  The second opposite party sent a reply dated 6.6.2008 with false allegations.  Hence, this complaint. 

          3. The first opposite party remained absent and set ex parte.

4. The reply version filed by the second opposite party briefly discloses the following:

The complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has suppressed the material facts.  The fact was that when the bus started at Puducherry New Bus Stand, the 4^th opposite party informed all the passengers that the bus had to be stopped at Kilparikalpet village stopping and would not go to Kilparikalpet school stopping on account of the local car festival celebrated by Sri Murugan Temple Authorities of Melparikalpet village.  This opposite party denied that the Opposite Parites 3 and 4 scolded the complainant in filthy language and forced him and his relatives to get down from the bus and asked them to go by walk.  On the otherhand, the complainant only scolded the opposite parties 3 and 4 in abusive language for asking the complainant and his relatives to get down from the bus at Kilparikalpet village bus stop itself.  The complainant submitted that on 20.4.2008 there was celebration of Lord Murugan temple festival at Melparikalpet village and the temple authorities requested the opposite parties not to proceed with the bus after Kilparikalpet bus stop as the road was blocked by the village people and the temple ceremonies and rituals were going on in the public road.  It was also not possible to ply the bus from Parikalpet bus stop to Kilparikalpet school stop.  The above facts were also brought to the knowledge of the complainant by the opposite parties 3 and 4, who also requested the complainant to bear with the inconvenience caused.  But the complainant refused to get down from the bus and scolded the OPs 3 and 4 for stopping the bus at the bus stop itself stating that he was entitled to travel in the bus upto Kilparikalpet school stop.  Therefore, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as the stoppage of the bus at Kilparikalpet Bus Stop itself was for the welfare of the local devotees in public interest.  The inability to run the bus upto Kilparikalpet school stop, the OPs were not at fault and it was for reasons beyond their control.  The allegation that the complainant and the children were not able to attend their brother's 15^th day death ceremony and the things purchased to the value of Rs.20,000/- got wasted are denied by this opposite party.  In the advocate notice dated 05.05.2008, there is no such averments in this regard.  Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with oblique motive of getting unjust enrichment.  There is no cause of action for the complaint. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

          5. The reply version filed by the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 briefly discloses the following:

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  These opposite parties denied that the complainant travelled in the bus with minor children and the tickets filed along with the complaint were issued to the complainant.  These opposite parties further denied that they asked the complainant and his relatives to get down from the bus at Kilparikalpet School Stopping, though the complainant had taken ticket to Kilparikalpet village stopping.  Further denied that these opposite parties scolded the complainant in filthy language and that they forced him to get down from the bus and asked to walk to his destination.  These opposite parties stated that one Murugan       Temple is situated on the road to Kilparikalpet School Stopping.  The temple festival was being celebrated from 16.04.2008 to 21.04.2008.  On 20.04.2008 Sedal Urchavam was celebrated.  The temple authority and village people had requested the OPs 2 to 4 not to ply the bus in the road leading to Kilparikalpet since thousands of devotees had gathered before the temple for Sedal and Car festival and it would be virtually impossible to ply the bus through the crowd.  Hence, these opposite parties had specifically instructed passengers going to Kilparikalpet, that the bus would stop at Kilparikalpet.  These opposite parties further stated that the complainant was well aware that the bus could not proceed further but wantonly argued with the opposite parties and scolded them in unparliamentary language.  These opposite parties denied that they have committed deficiency in service and that the complainant suffered mental agony and loss of money.  Further denied that the complainant was proceeding to the 16^th day, death ceremony of his brother and that things purchased for Rs.20,000/- had been wasted.  There is no cause of action for the complainant since all the passengers were duly informed that the bus would stop at Kilparikalpet due to the temple festival.  The stopping of the bus was not intentional but due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties.  The complainant has not suffered any loss or mental agony.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service by the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

6.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

7.  Point No.1:

The complainant has got four tickets in PRTC Bus to travel from Pondicherry to Kilparikalpet village school stopping.  To prove the same, he has filed the tickets vide Ex.C1.  Hence, the complainant is considered tobe a consumer.

          8.  Point No.2:

          This Forum has perused the complaint and reply version filed by the complainant and by the Opposite Parties and have also gone through the documents carefully.  On the side of the complainant, CW1, CW2 and CW3 was examined and Exs.C1 to C9 were marked.  OP1 was set ex parte.  On OP2's side one Kulandaivelu, Assistant Manager (Commercial) was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.     

9. The complainant submitted that he has got two full tickets and two half tickets vide Ex.C1 and travelled in the OPs PRTC Bus with the route No. 17A and the registration No. PY 01 N 7987, along with his relatives on 20.04.2008 at 7.15 p.m. from Pondicherry to Kilparikalpet school stopping and the bus arrived at Kilparikalpet village stopping at 8.10 p.m.    The complainant and his relatives were asked to get down by the OPs 3 and 3 at Kilparikalpet village stopping itself, by stating that the bus will not go the Kilparikalpet school stopping which is 1.5 kms. away from the Kilparikalpet village stopping.  The complainant further submitted that he has asked the OP3 and 4 that, why they have not informed earlier that the bus will not go to Kilparikalpet school stopping while taking the tickets.  For that the OPs 3 and 4 scolded the complainant with filthy language and forced to get down from the bus at Kilparikalpet village stopping along with four more persons namely Jegannathan, Amudha, Umarani and Udayakumar.  The complainant submitted that the act of the OP 3 and 4 caused mental agony and torture to the complainant and to the co-passengers who were also forced to get down at Kilparikalpet village stop.  The complainant submitted that there is no way except to get down the bus and reached his destination nearly 1.5 kms. by walk in the night time with two children with great fear without any street light.  The complainant submitted that due to the irresponsible and deficiency of service of the OPs the complainant could not attend his brother's 15^th day death ceremony and the things purchased for the value of Rs.20,000/- for the said function are all got wasted.  Hence, the complainant sent lawyer's notice to the OPs vide Ex.C2 and the same was acknowledged by OP1 and 2 vide Ex.C3 and C4.  The notice sent to OP3 and OP4 were returned as not claimed vide Ex.C5.  Ex.C6 is the reply notice issued by the OP2.  Ex.C7 is the 15^th day death ceremony card, Ex.C8 route No.17A plying sketch.  Ex.C9 is the FM Copy of Parikalpet Revenue village.  Hence, the OPs 3 and 4 have committed deficiency in service and OPs 1 and 2 have vicariously committed deficiency of service and therefore, the complainant has approached this Forum

          10. On the other hand, OP2 admitted that the complainant had travelled with his three relatives in the said bus and have also properly informed at Puducherry Bus Stand itself about the inability of the bus to go beyond Kilparikalpet village stopping.  While issuing tickets by OP4, he has also disclosed the reason as the local car festival celebrated by Murugan Temple Authorities of Melparikalpet village.  As per the request of the Temple Authorities, the President of the Parikalpet village Panchayat as well as the Public Welfare Organisation by name "Ilaya Thalaimurai Ilaignargal Narpani Mandram vide Exs.R1 to R3 and R5, the OPs could not proceed the bus beyond Kilparikalpet village stopping.  Ex.R4 is the reply notice sent by OP2 to the complainant.  Further, OP3 and OP4 did not scold the complainant in filthy language and forced him and his relatives to get down from the bus and asked them to go by walk.  That the complainant only scolded the OP 3 and OP4 in abusive language for asking the complainant and his relatives to get down from the bus.  Therefore, the stoppage of bus at Kilparikalpet village is only for the welfare of the local devotees and for public interest.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

          11. The OP3 and 4 denied that the complainant travelled in the bus on 20.04.2008 along with his relatives and also they forced to get down the complainant with minor children at Kilparikalpet village stopping.  The opposite parties 3 and 4 submitted that due to the Murugan Temple Festival which was held on the road leading to Kilparikalpet school stopping vide Ex.R1 and also the request made by the village people of Melparikalpet vide Exs.R2 to R4, the OP3, driver of the  could not drive the bus beyond Kilparikalpet village stopping.     The OPs requested the complainant to disembark from the bus and they have no any personal intention to cause inconvenience to passengers and  stopped the bus only for public interest.  The OPs 3 and 4 alleged that the complainant well aware of that the bus could not proceed further but wantonly argued with OP3 and OP4 and scolded in unparliamentary words. 

          12. It is clear that on perusal of records and evidence of Complainant and OPs, one Murugan Temple festival was celebrated on 20.04.2008 at Valluvar Street, Melparikalpet village.  OPs argued that due to that car and sedal festival, they could not ply the bus beyond the Kilparikalpet village stopping and no any personal vengeance or animosity against the complainant and stopped the bus only for public interest.  On perusal of the exhibits produced by OPs clearly shows that they did not file any requisition letter received from the villagers prior to that sedal and car festival stating that the bus should not proceed after the Kilparikalpet village stopping on that particular date.  Moreover, Exs.R2, R3 and R5 filed by OPs were obtained only after the said alleged incident from the villagers.  Further OP3 and OP4 could have informed about their inconvenience to the passengers at the boarding itself, but the OPs 3 and 4 failed to do so.  Being a resident of Kilparikalpet village, the CW1 adduced in his evidence that "Sedal Urchavam will be celebrated at 6.00 p.m and it will be over within 10 minutes".    CW2 and CW3 also adduced in their evidence that OPs 3 and 4 asked to leave the bus since there is no time for the bus to proceed further and also no route.  Hence, it is ascertained that the OPs 3 and 4 have forced the complainant and his three relatives (including two minor children) to get down from the bus at the night time.  In these circumstances, the complainant has reached his destination nearly 1.5 kms. by walk in the night time without any street light and also could not attend his brother's 15^th day death ceremony.  Therefore, the act of the OPs 3 and 4 clearly shows that they have committed deficiency in service and the OPs 1 and 2 being the Masters vicariously committed deficiency in service to the complainant. 

          13. Further, this Forum observed that the judgment referred by the OP2

          CDJ 1995 SC 188 [Consumer Unity and Trust Society vs The Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta; wherein, it was held  that

          "Mere loss or injury caused without any negligence on the part of the bank is not contemplated by section 14 (1) (d) – Bank is not liable to pay damages to customer on account of illegal strike by its employees." 

          CDJ 1999 SC 675 [Ravneet Singh Bagga vs M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that

          "A bona fide decision in good faith and a bona fide dispute is not covered within the term of "deficiency in service".

In the present complaint, there is no good faith or bona fide dispute.  Therefore, the cases referred by the OPs is not at all relevant and not applicable to this complaint.  Hence, the complainant has clearly established his case and proved the deficiency in service of Opposite Parties. 

          14. POINT No.3:

          From the above said discussion, this Forum has considered that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint is allowed and directed the Opposite parties

ii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and for mental agony.

          iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5000/-  as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 30^th day of August 2017.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW1           13.06.2011           P. Arjunan            

CW2           09.04.2012           R. Jaganathan

CW3           09.04.2012           Amuda

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  

RW1           10.07.2014           N. Kuzhandaivelu, Assistant Manager

(Commercial)

COMPLAINANT'S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER