K.P.N. SUPER SERVICES vs SAI KUMAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.1996 in O.P. No. 131/1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South). The appellant is the opposite party while the respondents are the complainants.

THE complainants booked two tickets for their travel from Madras to Trichy on the night of 5.9.1995 with the agent of the opposite party transport service. THE opposite party, transport service, has boarding points at Egmore, T. Nagar and Tambaram. THE complainants, it appears, purchased two tickets for a sum of Rs. 180/- and expressed their intention to board the bus at the boarding point at Tambaram. THE bus was to arrive at Tambaram on the day in question at 0.15 hrs. THE complainants would say that they were available at the boarding point at Tambaram much earlier to the arrival time of the bus at Tambaram. THE bus did not at all stop at the boarding point at Tambaram and proceeded very fast. Consequently, they were unable to make their trip to Trichy. They purchased the two tickets and they were in fact allotted seat numbers 19 and 20 to go to Trichy and from there they had to go to Tanjore for attending a marriage there. As a consequence of the non-performance of the journey on the day in question, they were unable to go to Trichy as well as attend the marriage thereafter at Tanjore. They suffered mental agony and anguish as a consequence of not attending the marriage function.

The complainants approached the agent for the refund of the cost of the tickets. The agent did not oblige the complainants to make refund of the cost of the tickets. The complainants, it appears also issued a legal notice to the opposite party claiming refund of the tickets besides compensation for mental agony and anguish they suffered. The notice so issued was not responded by the opposite party by the issuance of a reply.

ALLEGING the factors as above, the complainants knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite party in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part. No doubt true it is that the complainants purchased the two tickets for their travel on the night of 5.9.1995 from Madras to Trichy in their bus service which commenced its journey on the said day from Egmore boarding point. The bus, as a matter of fact, stopped at all the boarding points and waited for the arrival of the passengers. The complainants did not at all report to board the bus and consequently the bus left the board points at Madras. They would further state that the bus reached the termination Trichy without the tickets for the seat Nos. 19 and 20 having been filled up. The complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ultimately directed the opposite party to refund to the complainants Rs. 180/-, the price of the two tickets with interest @ 18% p.a. from 5.9.1995 till realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainants as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience suffered by them besides awarding cost quantified in a sum of Rs. 300/-. THE award so passed, the Forum below would state in its order, to be complied with within one month from the date of its order. THE complaint in other respects got dismissed. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging their Counsel namely learned Counsel Mr. V. Balaji. The respondents, on service of process did not enter appearance and they virtually remained absent. Even today, the respondents/complainants were not present to project their hues of views in this matter. The fact that they were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, to course, after hearing arguments of learned Counsel Mr. V. Balaji, appearing for the appellant/opposite party and on perusal of the materials placed on record.

THERE is no pale of controversy that the complainants purchased two tickets for Rs. 180/- for their journey from Madras to Trichy on the night of 5.9.1995. It was the specific case of the complainants that they purchased their tickets from the agent of the opposite party specifically informing him that they were to board the bus on the day in question at the boarding point at Tambaram. It is their further case that they were available at the boarding point at Tambaram much earlier to the arriving time at the said boarding point and the bus in question, however, without stopping at the boarding point, proceeded fast, with the result, they were stranded and not being in a position to have their journey at Trichy,.

THE opposite party, on the other hand, state that as a matter of fact, they stopped the bus at the boarding point at Tambaram and since the complainants were not available there, there was no other go for them except to take the bus after waiting for a few minutes. THEy would also contend that the tickets they purchased did not contain the necessary and requisite details as respects their boarding point at Tambaram. In that view of the matter, they would further state that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is the assertion and denial with equal force by the opposite party as respects the matter in dispute in this action. As such, the issue of fact arising for consideration is a disputed issue. Such being the case, we are placed in a predicament situation to assess the truth or otherwise of the version projected by the parties in the absence of any evidence direct or otherwise on such aspects of the matter. In such a situation, we are left with no other alternative but to sift and scan the factual matrix and other attended circumstances on broad probabilities.

There is one singal circumstance getting reflected from Exh. A1 the bus ticket. Of course, the bus ticket contains various columns such as name of the passenger, date of journey, departure time, seat number, boarding point, cost of fare, etc. When we perused Ex. A1 ticket, we are able to perceive that the name of the complainants is not mentioned besides the boarding point is also not mentioned. The non-mention of the boarding point, we rather feel, is of singal circumstance, which would indicate that the passenger to whom the ticket so issued was free to board the bus at any of the boarding points, namely, Egmore, T. Nagar and Tambaram and that perhaps was the reason the column relatable to the boarding point was not filled up despite the fact that the complainant passengers wanted to have the boarding point at Tambaram.

IT is the specific case of the opposite party that the seat Nos. 19 and 20 reserved for the complainants were vacant throughout the journey of the bus from Madras to Trichy. That means, the seat Nos. 19 and 20 were vacant at the time when the bus reached the boarding point at Tambaram. The factum of those seats having been vacant is an indication to point out that the complainants could board the bus at Tambaram. Such being the case, it is but necessary for the bus in question to stop at Tambaram and await for the arrival of the passengers/complainants. No doubt, the opposite party would state that the bus in question, as a matter of fact, stopped at the boarding point for a few minutes for the arrival of the passengers and since nobody turned up, the bus proceeded, they would say. IT is at this juncture, we have to take into account the other contention projected by the opposite party to the effect that since the tickets issued to the complainants did not contain the details that they will board the bus at Tambaram, there was no necessity for them to wait for their arrival at the boarding point at Tambaram. The opposite party would also state directly in conflict with the stand so taken by stating that they, as a matter of fact, stopped the bus at Tambaram for the arrival of the passengers. This sort of contradictory stands as taken by them is a clear indication of their stating something which is shorn of reality of the situation just to escape from the legal consequences to be ensued for their deficiency in service. Another fact of some paramount importance to be taken note of here is that despite the fact that the complainants issued a legal notice to the opposite party, they did not at all respond contradicting the facts as stated by the complainants. The opposite party, would, however, trot out some explanation as had been noticed by the Forum below and the explanation offered has been rightly negatived by the Forum below. The conduct of the opposite party in not contradicting the factors as stated in the notice is proof positive of the fact of the admission of facts as stated in the legal notice. In such state of affairs, we are not far wrong in coming to the conclusion that the case as projected by the complainants that they, as a matter of fact, were available at the boarding point much earlier to the arrival of the bus at Tambaram for their travel from Madras to Trichy and the bus in question without stopping at the board point at Tambaram, straightaway proceeded on the night in question, leaving them in the lurch, has to be necessarily acceded to. The consequence to flow from such finding is that the opposite party cannot at all escape from the legal consequences to be ensuing for their deficiency in service on their part. In this view of the matter, the finding as recorded by the Forum below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cannot at all be stated to be suffering from any serious infirmity calling for interference.

THE Forum below directed the opposite party to refund to the complainants Rs. 180/-, the cost of the tickets with interest @ 18% p.a. from 5.9.1995, the date of journey till realisation and such a direction cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. The Forum below awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainants. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we rather feel that the award of compensation by the Forum below in such a sum, rather appears to be excessive calling from reduction in a reasonable sum. We are of the view that if the opposite party is directed to pay 500/- by way of compensation to each of the complainants for their mental agony and anguish suffered by them, it won''t be besides justice. We accordingly do so. The Forum below also awarded a cost in a sum of Rs. 300/- which we feel, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, rather reasonable not calling for interference. We confirm that part of the award of the Forum below.

IN fine, except to the extent as indicated above of the order of the Forum below is modified, the appeal, in other respects shall stand dismissed. We however make no order as to costs. We make it clear that the order of the Forum below as modified by us is required to be complied by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise the complainants will be at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal dismissed.