State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director, Puducherry Road ... vs 1. I.Rajeswari 2. Ilangovan 3. ... on 10 December, 2008
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY WEDNESDAY, the 10th day of December, 2008 First Appeal No.18/2007 1. The Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation, Puducherry. 2. The Chairman, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation, Puducherry. Appellants Vs. 1. I.Rajeswari 2. Ilangovan 3. T.Mohanraj 4. Mala 5. Rajesh 6. S.Santhakumar (Respondents 2 to 6 are rep. by the 1st respondent herein) .. Respondents (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer ComplaintNo.17/2007, dated 10.07.2007) Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2007 1. I.Rajeswari 2. Ilangovan 3. T.Mohanraj 4. Mala 5. Rajesh 6. S.Santhakumar (Complainants 2 to 6 are rep. by the 1st Complainant herein) .. Complainants Vs. 1. The Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation, Puducherry. 2. The Chairman, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation, Puducherry. Opposite Parties BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN PRESIDENT TMT. P.V.R.DHANALAKSHMI, MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Tvl.A.Kanniappan & K.Balaji, Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru J.Kumaran, Advocate, Puducherry O R D E R The Opposite parties in the complaint have preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum in Calendar Case.No.17/2007 dt.10.07.2007. The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- , i.e. Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation for deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
2. The complaint has been preferred by the respondents herein claiming a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to each of the complainants for the mental agony and hardship suffered by them due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for the delayed departure of the bus from Puducherry to Bangalore.
The complainants have reserved the tickets in the opposite parties transport corporation for traveling from Puducherry to Bangalore with a sum of Rs.5/ for reservation charge and Rs.101/- for each ticket for the journey to be performed 22.10.2005 with a schedule departure of the bus at 11.00 p.m. on that day. According to the complainants, they were present at the boarding place with their luggage at 10.30 p.m. and having waited till 11.00 p.m., the bus did not turn up. They waited till 11.30 p.m. and even at 11.30 p.m., the bus did not turn up and there was no information regarding the departure of the bus even after 1.00 a.m. next day and finally, the bus left the depot at 1.20 a.m. on 23.10.2005. The complainant after issuing a legal notice dt 8.11.2005 has filed the complaint before the District Forum, Puducherry on 30.01.2007 claiming compensation and costs.
3. The case of the Opposite Parties before the District Forum was that there was sudden break down of the bus due to unforeseen event and the control of the Opposite Parties and after the defect in the bus was attended to, the bus departed from the bus stand and reached the destination at the scheduled time. It is stated that there was a delay of thirty months in preferring the complaint and the complainants have not proved the loss or damages suffered by them due to the delayed departure. The 2nd Opposite Party remained exparte and there is no oral evidence by both the parties. The complainant has marked Exs.C1 to 8 on their side and there was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the Opposite Parties.
4. The District Forum come to the conclusion that the complainants are consumers and that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle was under repairs and the delay in departure of the bus has caused inconvenience to the complainants and the mere fact that the bus could have reached the destination in time would not mean that it would not cause suffering and inconvenience to the passengers due to the non-stopping of the bus and considering the delay and inconvenience caused to the passengers there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and held that the complainants are entitled to compensation as stated earlier.
5. It is against this order, present appeal has been filed.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and respondents/Opposite Parties. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the complainants are consumers and 2) whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7.As far the first point is concerned, it is not seriously disputed that the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the point is answered in favour of the respondents/complainants.
8. As far the second point is concerned, we find that on the basis of evidence on record, we are of the view that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. The scheduled departure of the bus was 11.00 p.m. and ultimately it left for the destination at 1.30 a.m. next day morning. It is the case of the appellants that the bus has developed certain defects at the time of departure and after the rectification of the defects, the vehicle left Puducherry at 1.30 a.m. next day. However, the appellant has not proved either by oral or documentary evidence to show that the vehicle developed repairs prior to the time of departure and after rectification of the said defects, the vehicle was left for boarding point and from there it left for Bangalore at 1.30 a.m. We have given sufficient opportunities to the appellant to produce evidence in support of their plea by the production of job card or any other material to establish that the particular vehicle developed certain repairs prior to the time of departure and the defects were rectified and after the rectification of the defects, the bus left for bus stand from the depot. In spite of several opportunities granted to the appellant, learned counsel has not produced any evidence to substantiate the plea taken by the appellant in the version filed before the Forum. There is no evidence from the appellants to show the existence any order or instructions or notifications which forms part of contract that the appellants Corporation is not liable for any delay in departure or arrival of the vehicle. We have given more than sufficient opportunity to the appellants to establish their case, but, the appellants failed to produce any evidence. In the absence of any such evidence from the side of the appellant, we come to the conclusion that the appellants have not proved that the vehicle developed certain repairs prior to the time of departure and after repair the vehicle was taken to the Bus Stand for departure. We also confirm the finding of the District Forum that the mere fact that the vehicle has reached the destination in time would not absolve the appellant from the defect in service at the point of departure and the delayed departure, without any prior intimation to the complainants, would have caused hardship and inconvenience to the complainants. In this view of the matter, we affirm the reasoning of the District Forum and confirm the order of the District Forum. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. The order of the District Forum, Puducherry in Calendar Case No.17/2007 dated 10th July, 2007 stands confirmed.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 (N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN) PRESIDENT (P.V.R.DHANALAKSHMI) MEMBER