J.BALARAMI REDDY vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

EARLIER the Regional Transport Authority on 26.5.92 granted a permit for a town services route to ply the bus from D.S.R. Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore to Leguntapadu village via Venkateswarapuram, Milk Dairy, Leguntapadu Cross Roads through Peddepadugupadu GNT Road. While so, according to the complainants, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority without looking into the convenience of the public, varied the route for including three more halts, that is, Polytechnic College, Kovur and Inamadugu cross roads between the two terminals. Complaining that the said variation is not in public interest and is causing considerable delay in passengers reaching Leguntapadu village on account of the fact that there were three railway level crossings, the above complaint is filed to direct the respondents not to deviate from the original route of town service No. 36 and not to connect the Polytechnic College and Kovur Inamadugu cross-roads.

NOTICE was served on the respondents by the District Forum, but according to the order, they did not appear. The District Forum held that by virtue of variation by the respondent No. 1 that the bus should pass through Polytechnic College, Kovur, Inamadugu Cross-roads and as it has to pass through the railway level crossings and naturally on account of the heavy traffic on the railway track, it will result in the delay of the bus reaching the destination. It further held that the respondents have not stated how the revised route is beneficial to the passengers and why it was diverted by the respondent No. 1. It accordingly gave direction sought for in the complaint directing that the bus should ply on the original route before the variation.

Aggrieved by the said order, four persons preferred the appeal. The first appellant is (1) J. Balarami Reddy and (2) Gampa Penchalaian, (3) Munthala Mangamma and (4) Patan Ahmed Khan, are the other three, appellants. Since they were not parties to the order of the Distirct Forum, they filed an application to leave for appeal. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the respondent filed a counter stating that the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 gave notarised affidavit to the effect that they have not authorised anybody to file any affidavit on their behalf and, therefore, they have no interest in the appeal. In view of the said affidavit, no leave need be granted to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 to prefer the appeal. So far as they are concerned, the appeal is dimissed. But the first appellant Mr. J. Balarami Reddy did not withdraw the Vakalath filed by him along with others. Hence Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he is arguing the appeal on behalf of the first appellant. The first appellant is the Sarpanch of Legunta pad Gram Panchayath and he is a person interested and effected by the order of the District Forum. We are, therefore, satisfied that it is a case for granting leave to prefer the appeal by him.

ON merits, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that it is the Regional Transport Authority that passed the orders of variation having regard to the circumstances brought to its notice and in view of the interest of the public, in exercise of its power under Sec. 72(XII) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982. The said Act is self-contained Code under the provisions of the said Act, a revision lies to the State Transport Authority. Tribunal against the order of the Regional Transport Appellate. Thus, persons aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Authority can prefer a revision to the State Transport Appellate Authority. In fact, in the instant case, such a revision was filed against the order of variation of the Regional Transport Authority and the same is pending. Since the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained Code, which provides for granting of permits, prescribe the routes and to vary the same and as the Act provides for appeal, revision by the aggrieved parties the statutory power exercised by the Regional Transport Authority cannot be interfered with by the District Forum. We see sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. The Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained Code, which provides for granting of permit for the buses to ply on the specified routes. It also empowers the Regional Transport Authority after following the rules prescribed thereunder to vary or cancel the route. Person aggrieved, has a right of appeal under the Act. Evidently, in this case, in exercise of such statutory power, the Regional Transport Authority altered the route in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after following the due procedure. The person aggrieved can prefer the revision or appeal as provided under the Act. The District Forum cannot give any directions that a bus should ply contrary to the permit and the route prescribed in the permit. Under Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum can issue orders to the opposite party directing him to take one of more of the following things viz. (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the Consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.

IT is evident that even if there is any deficiency of services, which we are not inclined to agree, the Forum can only give the directions mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. IT is evident that he has no power to direct the opposite parties to maintain the town service route No. 36 of bus No. AEN 4950 to stick to a particular route inspite of the variation sanctioned by the Regional Transport Authority. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent in this appeal that there is change in the fare also on account of the variation in the route. But that is a matter to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority having regard to the distance between the two points and the route it has permitted to be varied. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent in his appeal that the people of Leguntapadu also made a representation to the Regional Transport Authority; and that the revision filed may also directed to be disposed of expeditiously. If there is any such representation, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the same in accordance with law. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal may be considered to dispose of the appeal at an early date. In the result, since the direction is beyond the scope and power of the District Forum, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.