ARUNJEEV SINGH WALIA vs PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

THIS is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] against order dated 6.2.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No. 1469 of 1998, Arunjeev Singh Walia s/o Sh. H.S. Walia, r/o Ahluwalia Mohalla, VPO Banur, Distt. Patiala v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Chandigarh Depot, Industrial Area, near Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under : The appellant - Shri Arunjeev Singh Walia travelled by Bus No. PB-11-9349 run by the respondent from General Bus Stand, Chandigarh to Banur, District Patiala on 28.12.1998 at 6.50 p.m. The conductor of the bus is alleged to have been charged sum of Rs. 12/- from the complainant as the price of the two tickets which were issued to him and which bore ticket Nos. 858174 and 161700 (vide copy Annexure P-1). The appellant was allotted seat No. 47. The bus could hardly cover a distance of 8 kms, when it stopped all of a sudden. The complainant and the other passengers of the bus were stranded for considerable time. It is alleged that another bus came around 7.00 p.m. and he travelled by the other bus and had to pay for another ticket to travel by the other bus. The appellant alleged that the bus No. PB-11-9349 which he took from General Bus Stand, Chandigarh was defective bus and the same could not travel beyond 8 kms. when it suddenly stopped and the appellant was stranded and he had to take another bus and they made to purchase ticket afresh. According to the appellant, this amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and he accordingly claimed compensation to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- apart from issuance of certain direction to the respondent to ply only such buses which were roadworthy.

The District Forum-I issued notice of the complaint to the respondent who filed reply contending, inter alia, that some mechanical defect developed in the aforesaid bus No. PB-11-9349 due to which it broke down on way to Banur. The passengers were accommodated on the other bus.

THE appellant filed his affidavit in support of his version. THE respondent did not lead any evidence in the shape of affidavit. THE District Forum-I held, inter alia, as under : "THE complainant who is an Advocate himself submitted that he was not interested in any monetary compensation, but only wants that O.P. - PRTC should keep the vehicles in good condition to avoid any inconvenience to the passengers. We do subscribe to this view, and as such as no claim is claimed by the complainant, so we expect that O.P. department would take due care about ensuring the travel trouble free operation of the vehicles, however, subject to just exceptions and O.P. department would also try that passengers should not suffer on account of inconvenience in this manner. THE case stands disposed of as such."

The complainant felt aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I and has filed this appeal. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent who put in appearance through Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate. The record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I.

WE have heard the appellant who argued his case in person and have perused the impugned order on the date of hearing of the appeal i.e. on 30.7.2001. Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate appearing for the respondent appeared subsequently. In the grounds of appeal, it has been, inter alia, contended that the appeal has been filed only to seek modification of the order to the extent that certain specific finding directions may be issued against the respondent making its transport services up to the mark. It was further contended that the District Forum-I failed to understand that after undergoing two years of constant harassment and appearing on each date of hearing, the appellant/complainant was not interested in getting some vague and casual order against the respondent which had defeated the purpose of filing the complaint by the appellant who is a lawyer by profession. The appellant urged before us that the District Forum-I committed an error in disposing of the complaint case by only expressing an expectation from the respondent-department. Mr. A.S. Walia submitted that a categorical and specific finding was required to be recorded regarding the deficiency on the part of the respondent and thereafter the appropriate relief in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the C.P. Act to have been granted. We find considerable merit in the submission of the appellant inasmuch as the District Forum-I has not recorded a categorical finding regarding the alleged deficiency on the part of the respondent. In the last but one para of the impugned order, the District Forum-I appears to have attached great significance to the submission of the appellant that he was not interested in any monetary compensation but only wanted that opposite party - P.R.T.C. should keep the vehicles in good condition to avoid any inconvenience to the passengers. Thereafter, the District Forum-I expressed agreement to the said view and found that no claim was being made by the complainant and hence, the District Forum-I went on to express expectations from the respondent-department. Once a complaint was entertained by the District Forum under the provisions of Section 12 of the C.P. Act, the same was required to be disposed of in accordance with the procedure as laid down under Sections 13 and 14 of the C.P. Act. A careful perusal of the complaint case will go to show that the District Forum-I did not record any statement in writing of the complainant that he was not interested in monetary compensation and that he was only interested in the issuance of certain directions to the opposite party. In case, the appellant/complainant made a specific statement in this regard, the same ought to have been recorded specifically in the zimini order and got signed by the complainant, so as to bind him. If such statement has not been recorded, a casual reference to the submission of the appellant/complainant cannot be made basis of a finding that the complainant was not interested in getting the monetary compensation and in drawing an inference that the complainant was not laying any claim, was not legally justified. In other words, the District Forum-I has not proceeded to consider and decide the complaint case in accordance with the provisions of law as contained in Sections 13 and 14 of the C.P. Act. In the absence of any such clear and categorical finding based on the material on record, the order passed by the District Forum in which no binding directions have been issued could not be sustained in law. Since the appellant has filed his evidence in the complaint case and the opposite party after filing the reply has not chosen to file any evidence in the shape of an affidavit to rebut the appellant''s claim, we deem it appropriate to take the complaint case and decide the same in appeal. The appellant/complainant alleged deficiency on the part of the opposite party on the ground that the bus by which he travelled from General Bus Stand, Chandigarh on 28.12.1998 at about 6.50 p.m. after purchasing tickets for travelling up to Village Banur in District Patiala, the bus bearing No. PB-11-9349 broke down after barely covering a distance of 8 kms. With the result that the appellant was stranded and he had to take another bus coming from Chandigarh for going to Banur and had to purchase fresh ticket. The averments made in the complaint were materially and substantially corroborated by affidavit of the appellant/complainant. It is significant to note that the respondent did not chose to controvert the evidence of the appellant inasmuch as no affidavit was filed in rebuttal of the case of the appellant/complainant. In this view of the matter, we find that the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the complaint case deserves to be given due credit and is fit to be relied upon. From perusal of the affidavit of the appellant a clear case of deficiency in service has been made out against the respondent. The appellant/complainant has claimed compensastion of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as loss suffered by him due to the deficiency in service. It is significant to note that the appellant/complainant sought the following prayer in the complaint case : "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Forum may kindly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite party to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for the loss suffered by him."

SINCE the complainant who is the appellant has prayed for award of compensation and has not prayed for issuance of any directions to the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/complainant is not entitled to have any directions issued in this complaint to the respondent. The District Forum-I committed an error in expressing a wish regarding the improvement in service of transport by the respondent.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the respondent was deficient in rendering service to the appellant who was put to sufference and who suffered on account of not only being stranded after covering a distance of 8 kms. from Chandigarh and had to catch another bus and forced to buy fresh ticket to the place of his destination i.e. Village Banur in District Patiala. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- would be adequate compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Apart from this, the appellant is also allowed the costs of the complaint and appeal which we quantify at a consolidated sum of Rs. 500/-. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside. The complaint case is allowed to the extent that the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service rendered to the appellant. The appellant is also entitled to get cost of complaint as well as appeal, which are quantified at a consolidated sum of Rs. 500/- which shall be paid to him by the respondent. The respondent shall pay the compensation and costs of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest on the said amount @ 10% per annum till the date of its payment or realization. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.