State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K. V. Ratnam vs The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director on 29 November, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 329 of 2012 against CC 365 of 2011, Dist, Forum-II, Hyderabad Between: K. V. Ratnam Plot No. 395, Prashanth Nagar Vanasthalipuram Hyderabad-500 070. *** Appellant/ . Complainant And The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director APSRTC, Bus Bhavan Hyderabad. *** Respondent/ Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P. Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Arun Kumar Lathker CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT. SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER & SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE ORAL ORDER:
(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant dis-satisfied with the amount awarded.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he had travelled from Vijayawada to Hyderabad on 23.11.2011 at 5.30 p.m. in the bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 191 and paid charges of Rs. 149/-. On the way the vehicle hit a vehicle coming in opposite direction, and when he questioned the driver he informed that chassis was bent, and as such the trouble. The driver was going very slow with an explanation that the lights of the bus were very dull and having poor lighting. The bus was very old giving lot of noise. The conductor informed that he was on duty for 20 hours.
The driver finally surrendered the vehicle at Kodad depot. They asked him to take another bus belonging to Ibrahimpatnam depot coming out of Kodad depot garage. The said bus was meant for moving in local villages, and headlights were suitable in order to ply in village roads. By then the bus was loaded twice to its strength. The passengers travelling in earlier bus were 39 in number and the vehicle in which he was directed to change over was having 38 passengers in all 77 passengers. They had travelled in a standing position. When he got a seat in outskirts he found that the seat had no cushion and bolt heads are fixed. Mentioning his plight, he gave a notice to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director of the APSRTC and sent e-mails to Public Relations Officers and also sought information under RTI Act. He found that they had charged 50% extra by operating old and uncomfortable buses. For all the inconvenience and mental harassment he had claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- towards documentation and legal expenses besides refund of extra fare collected from him.
3) The respondent APSRTC though engaged an advocate did not file its written version contradicting the facts alleged in the complaint.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A10 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had made to travel in an old bus with poor amenities with 77 passengers. The complainant had established that he underwent an uncomfortable journey, and therefore granted a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- together with costs of Rs. 500/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that for the sufferance he underwent on the day he was granted pittance. He claimed Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for which a meagre compensation of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded. He spent Rs. 3,000/- towards documentation and legal expenses for which only Rs. 500/- was granted. Therefore he sought for enhancement of compensation as well as costs.
7) During the course of hearing the respondent APSRTC filed an application to receive documents by way of evidence, they were received and assigned as Exs. B1 to B3.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant travelled in the respondent APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 191 from Vijayawada to Hyderabad on 23.11.2011 at 5.30 p.m. by purchasing a ticket for Rs. 149/- under Ex. A1 ticket.
It is also not in dispute that the bus could not take further journey as the vehicle was hit by another vehicle, and as such chassis was bent. He was made to board another bus at Kodad wherein there were already 38 passengers. He had travelled all the way from Kodad to Hyderabad in standing position. He complained that had the buses been in condition he could not have undertaken such an uncomfortable journey and it created a lot of mental agony to him. When he complained to the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director as well as Public Relations Officer they did not give any reply. He spent about Rs. 3,000/- for obtaining information under RTI Act., and spent about Rs. 5,000/- for filing the complaint, and also spent Rs. 1,000/- towards to and fro expenses for attending the Dist. Forum. Therefore, he sought enhancement of compensation to Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3,000/-towards legal expenses and return 50% extra fare which they had collected by mentioning that it was a special bus.
10) The appellant field written arguments as well as additional written arguments running into several pages reiterating the stand taken by him that the services extended to him were deficient.
11) For the first time respondent APSRTC filed written arguments and also certain documents by way of additional evidence. A perusal of reply would undoubtedly show that the complainant had travelled on 23.11.2011 in a Palle Velugu bus. They arranged this extra bus under special service it being Sunday, and there was heavy rush. If the complainant intended to have some more comforts he could have opted for services like Garuda, Indra, Hi-tech, deluxe, express etc. Palle Velugu is an ordinary service.
It never forced the complainant to avail the said service. The said day was Sunday followed by Republic Day holiday and there was heavy rush. Palle Velugu service is introduced to ensure that the poor people could commute and buses would halt at each and every stage.
The distance between Vijayawada and Hyderabad is 272 KMs , and it would stop necessarily at each and every stage en-route. It would accommodate more number of passengers than a normal bus as it is a low cost service. The complainant did not complain to any of the Depot Managers about the condition of the bus. By virtue of circular No. M/534(1)/2001- OPD(M) all the Regional Managers in the State were directed to place the services of special buses by collecting 1.5 times the normal fare. At the request of passengers on the ground that they were not comfortable the bus driver stopped the bus at Kodad, and the passengers were shifted to another bus bound to Hyderabad. It was an ordinary bus. It was perfectly fit to undertake journey. The driver log sheet discloses that the drivers were not performing the duty beyond the limit prescribed for them. The bus was stopped at Kodad at the request of the complainant. He was permitted to travel in another bus. He cannot be provided with a seat. There is no proof that he paid Rs. 3,000/- to an advocate for legal services. There is no deficiency in service on its part. He was not forced to travel in such a bus.
When according to him, he was Deputy General Manager in a Central Government organization drawing a salary of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month he ought to have opted for a better vehicle and ought not to have opted for a low cost journey. Since the complainant had taken comfortable and safe journey he cannot claim compensation on the ground that he would have suffered had anything happened on the said day. It had sent the amount towards compliance of the order.
In order to get some more amount, he filed the appeal which was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
12) The fact that the bus which he had boarded met with an accident was not in dispute. It was unexpected. It is not as though, the bus which he had boarded earlier prior to the accident was defective. Since the bus was damaged, the driver was obviously driving it with caution, till he reached the next depot at Kodad. It cannot be said that whatever difficulty that the complainant was made to suffer was done wantonly. To arrange a bus at the place of accident could not have been possible, and if that were to be so, it would take some more time. Obviously, the driver brought the bus along with passengers to the next depot. It is also not in dispute that the day when he was travelling was a Sunday followed by Republic Day a holiday, and there was heavy rush. As there was dearth of buses, he was accommodated in an ordinary bus. Even by then the bus was having several passengers, and the complainant was accommodated, and throughout his trip up to Hyderabad, he was made to stand. Considering his plight and suffering he endured all through a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded besides costs of Rs. 500/- Claim of Rs. 5,000/- towards inconvenience equally cannot be quantified. Since he had paid Rs. 149/- towards charges, the Dist. Forum granted 10 times the ticket charges, and in fact, though he himself conducted the case costs of Rs. 500/- was awarded. Equally, the averment that he spent Rs. 3,000/- towards legal expenses which he claimed was not supported by any evidence. These un-expected turn of events would not be routine.
He himself admits that the bus met with an accident, and he was made to travel in another bus, wherein he was made to stand, that was the reason why some compensation was awarded besides costs. We do not see how compensation could be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. Compensation in these cases cannot be quantified to the liking of the complainants. Undoubtedly it entails some guess work. Considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs were awarded for the claim of Rs. 5,000/- it cannot be said that it was too low a compensation. It is just and modest. Considering all the circumstances, compensation awarded cannot be enhanced. We do not see any merits in the appeal that necessitates enhancement of compensation.
13) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER 29/11/2012 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.