KATAKAM BHASKARA RAO vs REPAKULA SHIVALINGAM

THE order of the Khammam District Forum in O.P. No. 624/1995 dated 9.12.1998 is questioned by the third opposite party in that O.P. THE complainant is the first respondent and first and second opposite parties are the second and third respondents in the appeal. THE respondents were served. THE complainant is present in person and made submissions himself. THE learned Government Pleader represented the second and third respondents. Heard both sides. We have the record of the District Forum before us.

THE complaint is made by an M.P.T.C. Member of THEttalapahad in Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District. He stated in the complaint that the appellant had permit to run his bus from Khammam to Palair via Thirumalayapalem, Thallachervu, Pocharam, Choutapally. THE case of the complainant was that though the appellant was having permit to run the bus from Khammam upto Palair, he was not going upto Palair but was plying it only upto Thallachervu village. THE other complaint was that the bus did not have minimum facilities and that separate seats for women were not provided in it and that the seats provided were also not good. He also complained that the bus was being run at very high speed causing apprehension to the passengers and it was also being involved in accidents frequently because of that. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant filed sheets of paper containing signatures of several persons. THEre was no reference to those signatures in the complaint and he did not explain whose those signatures were and why they were filed. The first and second opposite parties were represented by the Government Pleader but they did not file version/counter. The appellant filed a counter stating that the complainant was harassing him and demanded free rides in the bus and was also threatening the conductor and demanding payments. He also stated that at the relevant time the route from Thallachervu to Palair was not good and therefore, he was not plying upto Palair and that even the Road Transport Corporation Buses were not being run upto Palair because of that. He also submitted that the signatures were obtained from various persons by the complainant stating that he would provide loan facilities and ration cards etc., and making other promises.

The District Forum allowed the complaint holding that the, appellant was bound to run his bus upto Palair as per the permit obtained by him and he should not ply it only upto Thallachervu and directed the appellant to ply the bus for the full route. As regards the complaint that the bus did not have minimum facilities and did not provide separate seating facilities for women passengers, the District Forum directed the Motor Vehicle Inspector (the second opposite party before the District Forum and the third respondent in the appeal) to check the bus of the appellant within one month and if it was not properly maintained to recommend to the first opposite party i.e., the Road Transport Officer, Khammam (the first respondent in this appeal) for cancellation of the route permit issued to the appellant.

THE question that arises is whether the District Forum had any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent/complainant. He did not approach the District Forum stating in his complaint that he hired the services of the appellant for consideration by purchasing a ticket to travel by the bus on any particular day. He did not also file any material to establish that the persons from whom he had taken signatures travelled by the bus purchasing tickets and complained about the facilities provided in the bus and about non-provision of separate seating for women. Under the circumstances no hiring of services for consideration was involved in the present case. Affidavit or other evidence of any of the passengers who frequently travelled in the bus of the appellant in question was also not placed before the District Forum. Under the circumstances complainant had not made out that he was a consumer and that the dispute raised by him was a consumer dispute to be entertained by the District Forum. THE District Forum erred in entertaining the complaint without enquiring into this aspect of the matter. We make it clear that it is open to the complainant to approach the District Forum if as a passenger for consideration he can establish that the appellant has not provided facilities required to be provided by him as permit holder for plying the bus along the route. THE order of the District Forum is, therefore, set aside and the complaint is dismissed. THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.