State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director ... vs P.Kanthi Meenakshi,Thoothukudi. on 26 June, 2015
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.ANNAMALAI,M.A.,M.L.,M.Phil. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Thiru.M.MURUGESAN, B.Sc., B.Ed., MEMBER.
F.A.No.387/2012
(F.A.No.81/2012 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No.92/2010 dated 26.05.2011 on the file of DCDRF,
Tuticorin)
THE 26th DAY OF JUNE 2015.
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Division,
19, Trivandrum Road,
Tirunelveli-3.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Thoothukudi Regional Office,
Thoothukudi. Appellants/Opposite Parties
Vs
P. Kanthi Meenakshi,
D/o. Punalvana Rajan,
18-F, 1-A, Briyant Nagar,
2nd Street, (East),
Thoothukudi - 628 008. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties : Mr. K. Sathya Singh, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.P. Pethu Rajesh, Advocate.
2
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 16.06.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Tuticorin passed in C.C.No.92/2010, dated 26.05.2011, allowing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he boarded the Bus bearing Registration No. TN -72 N-1393 at Madurai on 03.12.2010 at about 7.00 pm for going to T uticorin, and the conductor of the bus demanded Rs.57/- for the ticket which is excessive. When he asked the conducto r why excessive amount was collected for the ticket, he did not offer any explanation. The ordinary fare between Madurai and Turticorin is only Rs.42/-; but the conductor gave the ticket for Rs. 57/-. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of the oppo site parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. According to the opposit e parties, as per G.O. Ms. No.1204, dated 5-12- 2001 f or Air Suspension Coaches, the f are is not to exceed 1.35 t imes of the Super Deluxe Express f are of Rs.0.38 paise per KM shall be charged and it works about to Rs.60/ -, since, it is a super deluxe bus and this is not unf air trade practice.
4. The Dist rict Forum considered the rival contentions and held that the opposite parties collected excessive f are and have committed 3 unf air trade pract ice and order ed to ref und Rs.15/ - collected in excess f rom the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- f or mental agony and hardships and to pay costs of Rs. 3,000/-.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite par ties have pref erred this appeal cont ending that the District For um wrongl y appreciated Ex.A7 which is the R. C. Book of the vehicle having Registrat ion No.TN 72 N -1393; wher eas, the respondent / complainant has travelled by Bus having Registrat ion No.TN -72 N-1393. It is pert inent to note that the R.C. Book - Ex. A7 relat es to the Bus No.TN -72 N 1393, and this number is correctly m entioned in the complaint, pr oof aff idavit, etc. but, the Steno who t yped the order inadvertent ly t yped somewhere as TN 72 N1393 in the index. Theref ore, the content ion that the Distr ict Forum consider ed a wr ong R.C. Book is untenable and it is a misleading argument.
6. W e have heard both sides arguments and t he perused the materials placed bef ore this Commission. The lear ned counsel f or the appellants / opposit e part ies would cont end that the complainant is not a consumer as def ined by Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is well settled that the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, and theref ore, the content ion of the appellants is unsustainable.
7. The f urther content ion of the appellants is that the complaint is bad f or non-joinder of necessar y part y viz. the conductor of the bus. W e have to note that such a plea is not rais ed in the version and the 4 appellants / opposite parties have pr oper ly f iled version and proof aff idavit in the absence of conductor, and ther ef ore, there is no f orce in the content ion of the appellants.
8. It is signif icant to note that the couns el f or the appellants has stated in the Grounds of Appeal as f ollows:
13. The Forum below failed to note that the Respondent/Complainant sat in the bus without noticing the bus is a SFS or Special Bus.
16: The Forum below failed to not e and consider that t he respondent was not compelled to travel by the bus TN 72 N 1393;(Special bus) (Super Delux bus) "29: The Forum below failed to note that nobody compelled the complainant traveled t his bus.
W e f ind no sense in this argument, and this sort of argument is deprecated.
9. The lear ned counsel f or the appellant relied upon the ruling reported in II (2014) CPJ 15 ( NC).W hile consider ing the f acts and circumstances o f the case, the rulings r elied upon is not relevant t o the case in our hand. The respondent/complainant relied upon the f ollowing judgments of this Commission and other two State Commissions in which orders passed in the similar case of same as in our han d.
1) F.A.No.275/2010, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, dated 26.09.2013.
2) F.A.No.386/2012, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Comm ission, Madurai Bench. dat ed 28.03.2013. 5
3) III (2001) CPJ 255, Appeal No.22 of 1998, Stat e Consumer Disput es Redr essal Commission, Pondicherr y.
4) II (2004) CPJ 305, Tamil Nadu State Consum er Disp utes Redressal Commission, Chennai, dated 27.02.2004 which are relevant f or the case in our hand.
10. W e hold that there is unf air trade practice committed by the opposite parties, and there is no mer it in the appeal and the reby the f indings of the Distr ict Forum in this regard to be conf irmed. However, while consider ing the quantum of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the award of Rs. 25,000/- is somewhat on the higher side while considering the f acts and ci rcumst ances of the case and since the opposite part y being a Gover nment Agencies, we ar e inclined to reduce the same f rom Rs. 25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- .
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modif ying the order of the District Forum reducing the compensat ion f or mental agony f rom Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and in other r espects conf irming the order of the District Forum, Tuticorin, passed in C. C.No. 92/ 2010, dat ed 26.05.2011. No order as to costs in this appeal.
The dir ections shall be complied within six weeks f rom the date of this order.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/ -xxxxxxxxxx M. MURUGESAN, A.K. ANNAMALAI, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUD ICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2015/June