State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K. Somaiah, S/O Nagaiah, Warangal vs A.P. S. R. T. C., Warangal on 28 February, 2012
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 1193/210 against CC 93/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. Between : K. Somaiah, S/o Nagaiah R/o Dantalapally Village H. No. 2-10, Narsimhulapeta Mandal Warangal District Pin : 506324 .. Appellant/complainant And The Depot Manager A.P. S. R. T. C. Warangal II Depot, Nakkalagutta Hanamkonda , Warangal District . Respondent/opposite party. Counsel for the Appellant : party in person. Counsel for the Respondent : served Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth Day of February Two Thousand Twelve Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the order dated 18.08.2010 in CD 93/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
The brief facts of the complaint are as under :
The complainant is a deaf person and 90% handicapped. He applied to APSRTC management for issuance of physically handicapped bus pass and in spite of such a request OP refused to give such concession bus pass to him. On 13.10.2009 the complainant has given a representation to the OP through courier service and requested to issued physically handicapped concession bus pass under the handicapped quota. Even after receipt of the same, OP failed to issue the same and the said acts of OP amount to deficiency in service and hence the complaint. Hence he filed the complaint for a direction to issue handicapped bus pass and also damages and costs.
3. Opposite party filed written version opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
The complainant has submitted an application to the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Warangal II depot requesting to issue physically handicapped bus pass and it was received in the office on 14.10.2009. Thereafter a reply was given to the complainant to produce physically handicapped certificate issued by Regional Medical Board and Residence Proof certificate and the said reply which was sent through registered post acknowledgement due to the given address of the complainant was returned with an endorsement that the person was not living in that village. Later on, to their utter surprise, the said person ie the complainant filed this complaint before the District Forum duly enclosing copy of physically handicapped certificate issued by Chairman, Regional Medical Board, Warangal, wherein, the percentage of his deaf is shown as 90%. However, as per APSRTC Manual, on operations under planning sub heading no. 17 the deaf and dumb is one whose sense of hearing and speaking in fully non-functioning for ordinary purpose of life. The person who cannot hear/understood sound at all even with amplified speech is a deaf person. As per the rules in force the deaf and dumb with 100% disability are eligible for physically handicapped bus pass and the medical certificate submitted by the complainant discloses that he is having 90% deafness only and therefore the complainant is not entitled for physically handicapped bus pass. The Superintendent (T) , Warangal informed the said fact to the complainant already that is not eligible for obtaining PHC bus pass duly endorsing on the PHC certificate. In spite of such an information with malafide intention the complainant approached the Consumer Forum and misguided the Forum. as per the complaint he is the resident of Danthalapally village, Narasimhulapet Mandal and he has to approach the concerned Depot Manager, Torrur and thus the complaint is not maintainable and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant did not file evidence affidavit in spite of giving several chances including on costs and thus his right to file evidence affidavit was forfeited however Ex. A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the complainant. G. Aparna kalyani, employee of OP filed her evidence affidavit and marked Ex. B-1. No arguments advanced by the complainant who filed the complaint in person and Op advanced arguments in support of their defence.
5. Having considered the material on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order complainant filed this appeal in person and contended that orders under appeal are not sustainable either in law or on facts and that earlier such a pass was given in his favour and thereafter refused to give the same alleging that unless there is 100% disability and also contended that to change place of issuance of concession bus pass from Warangal Depot to Torrur Depot.
7. Perused the representations of the complainant and material on record. No arguments advanced for respondent/OP.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?
9. There is no dispute from the Op that the complainant submitted an application to it requesting to issue physically handicapped bus pass in his favour and that it was received in the office of OP on 14.10.2009.
According to the OP after such a notice a reply was given to the complainant to his given address to produce physically handicapped certificate issued by regional Medical Board so also residence proof certificate and that the said cover returned with an endorsement that the person was not available in the given address. There is no documentary evidence in the said context on the side of the OP. There is no evidence affidavit of the complainant in support of his case and also denial of the said aspects canvassed in the evidence affidavit of G. Aparna representing the OP and therefore the plea taken by the OP in the said aspect is believed as true. It as the duty of the complainant to inform change of address to postal department and when he did not do so and deny the version of the OP aforesaid is not entitled for benefit in the said context. However, Ex. A3 document marked on behalf of the complainant is a medical certificate for Deaf and it reveals that the complainant is having 90% deafness. Ex. B1 Circular shows that if a person is having 100% deaf and dumb he is entitled to get bus pass and thus there is acceptable force in the contention of the OP that since the complainant is having 90% deafness is not entitled to get the bus pass. Further, there is no dependable evidence from the complainant side that his sense of hearing is fully not functioning for ordinary purpose of life and that he cannot hear or understand sound at all even with amplified speech because there is no such certification in Ex. A3. After considering the material on record, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint and there are no reasons to interfere with such finding.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs of the appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER .