DEPOT MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C. vs P. NISAR AHMED

THIS appeal, by the Opposite Party, is directed against the order dated 23.3.93, passed by the District Forum, Bellary, in Complaint No. DFB/ C-106/92, directing the Opposite Party-KSRTC to pay to the Complainant compensation in a sum of Rs. 100/-. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The Complainant averred that on 1.5.92, he went to the bus stand at Kudligi to take a bus for Hospet, which was to start from Kudligi at 4.30 p.m. He reached the bus stand at 4.15 p.m., but came to know that the bus was late by 30, minutes. By 5.00 p.m. again it was informed that the bus probably would depart at 5.30 p.m. Even by 5.30 p.m. the bus did not arrive. On enquiry the Complainant found that the bus was late due to some mechanical problems so it would depart from the bus stand at 6.30 p.m.

FINALLY the bus came to the bus stand at 6.00 p.m. and left for Hospet at about 6.30 p.m. late by two hours. It is the grievance of the Complainant that as he reached Hospet late by 2 hours, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the Opposite Party.

The Opposite Party filed its version and averred that the bus that was to leave by 4.30 p.m. on 1.5.92, had some mechanical problems, so it took time for its repair and regular check-up and so there was delay of 2 hours. The Opposite Party denied that the Complainant had made regular enquiries at bus stand and he had undergone any mental agony and suffering and in that view sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the Complainant examined himself as PW 1 and got Exs. P-1 and P-2 marked in evidence. The Opposite Party examined its Traffic Controller at Kudligi as RW 1. The District Forum appreciating this material placed on record by the parties, held that the Opposite Party did not commit any deficiency in service by running the said bus by 2 hours late on that day. It held that the bus had some mechanical problem, so it was late on that day. It held that the Complainant was not properly informed about the delay in the departure of the bus and in that view awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 100/- to the Complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. Perused the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record by the parties. The Complainant in his evidence has stated, thus: "Then that bus came to the bus-stand at about 6.00 p.m. I then got into the bus and purchased a ticket as per Ex. P-l. The bus left Kudligi bus stand at 6.30 p.m. and reached Hospet at about 8.00 p.m." It is evident from this statement of the Complainant that the Complainant got into the bus only at about 6.30 p.m-. purchased the bus ticket and travelled in the said bus to Hospet, reaching thereby about 8.00 p .m. The Complainant has no grievance about the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in running the bus from Kudligi to Hospet when he got into the bus and purchased the ticket. The only grievance of the Complainant is that at the bus stand he was not properly informed by what time the bus would leave the bus-stand.

THE District Forum on consideration of the material held that the bus had some mechanical problems and it took time for its repair and in that view it had specially recorded the finding, that the Opposite Party did not commit any deficiency in service. Even on recording this finding, granting of compensation to the Complainant, in our view, is clearly erroneous.

MOREOVER the Complainant entered the bus by about 6.00 p.m. and the bus left the bus stand by about 6.30 p.m. and reached Hospet by about 8.00 p.m. Having regard to this fact the Complainant becomes a ''consumer'' only after he got into the bus and purchased the ticket. The Complainant has no grievance about the service of the Opposite Party from that time onwards till he reached Hospet. The grievance made by him is only about not giving proper information about the departure of the bus to him while he was waiting at the bus stand. When the Complainant was waiting at the bus stand, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant had not hired the services of the Opposite Party. Therefore, he cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' and in that view, this complaint itself is untenable. The grievance of the Complainant, made by the Complainant, are in respect of a fact when he had not availed the services of the Opposite Party. He availed the services of the Opposite Party only when he got into the bus and purchased the ticket. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, holding the Complainant as a ''consumer'' and in that view, awarding compensation by the District Forum is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.3.93, recorded by the District Forum, Bellary, in Complaint No. DFB/ C-106/92, is set aside. The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.