State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ... vs R. Pethu Rathish, 24-B, Toovaipuram ... on 28 March, 2014
BEFO RE THE STAT E CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESS AL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH
Hon'ble Justice Thir u R. Regupat hi PRESIDENT
Thiru J. Jayaram, JUDI CIAL MEMBER
F. A. No. 386 / 2012 ( FA 8 0 /2 0 12 o n t h e f i l e of SC DR C, C h en n a i) ( A ga i ns t O r d er i n C. C. 89 / 20 1 0, d at e d 2 6- 0 5- 20 1 1 on t h e f il e of th e D CD RF, T ut ic or in ) D ATED THIS THE 28 T H D AY OF M ARCH, 2014
1. The Managing Dir ector, ] Tamil Nadu State Transport, ] Corporation ( Madurai) Ltd, ] Madurai Division, ] Bye Pass Road, ] Madurai ] ]
2. The Managing Dir ector, ] Tamil Nadu State Transport, ] Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd, ] Tirunelveli Division, ] No.19, Trivandrum Road, ] Tirunelveli - 3 ] ]
3. The General Manager, ] Tamil Nadu State Tra nsport ] Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd, ] Thoothukudi Regional Off ice, ] Appellants / Opposite Parties Thoothukudi ] Vs R. Pethu Rathish, ] 24-B, Toovaipur am 10 t h Street, ] Respondent / Complainant Thoothukudi - 628 003 ] This appeal coming bef ore us f or f inal hearing on 2 1.03.2014 and on hear ing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the f ollowing Order:
Counsel f or Appellants/Opposite Parties : Ms. R. Dhanalakshm i - App-1 Mr. Sathya Singh - App 2&3 Counsel f or Respondent/Complainant : Mr. P. Pethu Rathish 2 J. J AY AR AM, JUDICI AL M EMBER This appeal is f iled by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin in C.C.89/2010, dated 26-05-2011, allowing the complaint .
2. The case of the complainant is that he boarded the Bus bear ing Registrat ion No. TN -58 N-1157 at Madurai on 24 - 7-2010 at about 4 pm f or going to Tut icor in, and the conductor of the bus demanded Rs. 57/- f or the ticket which is excessive. W hen he asked the conductor why excessive amount was collected f or the t icket, he did not of f er any explanation . The ordinary f are bet ween Madurai and Turticorin is only Rs. 42/ -, but the conduct or gave the ticket f or Rs.57/-.
This is an unf air trade practice on the part of the opposit e parties . Hence, the complaint.
3. According to the opposite parties, as per G.O. Ms. No.1204, dated 5 -12-2001 f or Air Suspension Coaches, the fare is not to exceed 1. 35 tim es of the Super Deluxe Express f are of Rs.0.38 paise per KM shall be charged and it works about t o Rs.57/ -, since, it is an Air Suspension Bus, and this is not unf air trade pract ice. .
4. The Distr ict Forum considered the r ival content ions and held that the op posite part ies collect ed excessive f are and have committed unf air t rade practice, and ordered compensation of Rs.25,000/ - f or mental agony and hardship s, and ordered ref und of Rs.15/- collected in excess f rom the complainant and to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have pref erred this appeal.
3
5. In the Grounds of Appeal, t he learned counsel f or the appellants / opposit e part ies, would contend that the Distr ict Forum wr ongly appreciated Ex.A6 which is t he R.C. Book of the vehicle having Registrat ion No.TN 72 N-1393; whereas, the respondent / complainant has travelled by Bus having Registration No. TN -58 N- 1157. It is pertinent to note that the R. C. Book - Ex.A6 relates to the Bus No.TN-58 N 1157, and t his number is correctly mentioned in the complaint , proof affidavit, etc. but, the Steno who typed t he order inadvertent ly t yped somewhere as TN 72 N1393 in t he index. Theref ore, the contention that the Distr ict Forum considered a wrong R.C. Book is untenable and it is a misleading argument.
6. The learned counsel f or the appellants / opposite part ies would cont end that the complainant is not a consumer as def ined by Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Prot ection Act. It is well settled that the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protect ion Act, and theref ore, the contention of the appellant s is unsustainable.
7. The f urther contention 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 not e that such a plea is not raised in the ver sion, and the appellants / opposit e parties have properly f iled ver sion and proof aff idavit in the absence of conductor, and theref ore, there is no f orce in the contention of the appellants .
8. It is signif ican t to note that the counsel f or the appellants has stated in the Gr ounds of Appeal as f ollows: 4
"13: The Forum below failed to note that nobody compelled the person like the respondent to travel by the part icular disputed bus ;
23: The For um below failed to note and consider that the respondent was not compelled to travel by the bus TN 58 N 1157;
24: The Forum below failed to consider that if the respondent wants to travel by the bus very comfortably or to travel by a bus without any ticket, he may avail some other alternative arrangement ".
9. W e f ind no sense i n this argument, and this sort of argument is depr ecated.
10. W e hold that t here is unf air trade pract ice committed by the opposite parties, and there is no merit in the appe al, and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed conf irming the order of the District For um. No order as to costs in the appeal.
12. W e have to note that in some ear lier cases bef ore the Consumer Forum, it is held that there is unf air trade practice on the part of the opposite parties; but even then, the unf air trade practice is committed by t he opposite part ies again and again. Theref ore an order is issued to t he opp osite part ies dir ecting them to discontinue the unf air trade pract ice , as contemplated under Sec. 14 ( 1) (f ) of the Consumer Protect ion Act.
(J. JAY AR AM ) (R. REGUPATHI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT