M. Satya Prabhakara Rao vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. State Road Transportation Corporation

THIS revision petition is filed by the Complainant in consumer complaint No.698 of 2010 decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, Hyderabad on 21.1.2011. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that on 28.5.2010 he had purchased a bus ticket to travel to Kothagudam on the next date i.e. 29.5.2010. On the day of journey, he waited for over two hours at L.B. Nagar bus station but found no bus service. At about 11:45 in the night he came to know through some other commuters that the concerned bus service has been cancelled.

THE Complainant moved the District Consumer Forum alleging that cancellation of the bus service without any intimation to the passengers or any alternative arrangements for their travel amounted to deficiency in service. In the written response, the stand of the OP/AP State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) was that the bus service had been canceled due to Telangana Bandh and for the same reason no alternate arrangements could be made. THE reservation counter at L.B. Nagar bus station was closed and therefore, no one was available to inform the passengers about cancellation. THE resultant inconvenience caused to the passengers was not due to any deficiency of service on the part of the APSRTC. The District Forum observed that the OPs should have deputed some employees on that particular day to inform the passengers about the cancellation. It was also their duty to assist the passengers. It is not enough to say that the reservation counter was closed and no official was available for this purpose. The District Forum therefore awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

The AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal of APSRTC. The Commission observed that when the Telangana Bandh call was given, the Complainant should not have purchased the ticket in advance. The State Commission disagree with the finding of the District Forum in the following terms:- ?As rightly pointed out the complainant having purchased the ticket at Uppal depot he ought to have found out the reason for not plying the buses going to Uppal Bus-station. It is not as though the complainant could establish that buses were run on the said day. In the light of the fact that buses could not be run due to Telangana Bandh, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that it amounts to deficiency in service. Undoubtedly the appellant had acted in the interests of bus passengers and their safety. It is not as though the complainant did not receive the amount covered under the ticket. These are all extreme cases where buses could not be run, a sort of frustration of contract. We do not agree with the opinion expressed by the Dist. Forum that whatever be the reason the buses had to be run.?

THIS Commission has received letters on two occasions from the petitioner praying that the matter may be decided on the basis of record, if necessary at the admission stage itself. The petitioner has requested that his personal presence may be dispensed with as he is not in a position to bear the expenses of travel from Hyderabad to Delhi. We have therefore, examined the contentions of the revision petitioner in the light of the records of this case. In the revision petition the order of the State Commission is assailed on the ground that the State Commission did not rely upon the contents of the letter of the Opposite Party in proper perspective. It is also urged that all bus services were not cancelled on that day and several district bus services were operated during night time on 29.5.2010.

THIS contention of the revision petitioner runs counter to his pleadings before the District Forum. The complaint filed by him, merely states that ?Thereafter the complainant was not allowed in any other bus for performing journey despite repeated request to the concerned?. THIS is to be seen with reference to relevant response of the APSRTC has placed on record by the petitioner himself. In reply to the specific question whether any buses operated on 29.5.2010 after 9:00 p.m, it is stated on behalf of the APSRTC that On bundh calls the operation of Buses will be as per the direction given by police officials from time to time, some of the Buses are operated as directed by police officials. THIS has a very clear focus on security considerations as the purpose for operating the APSRTC Buses and does not support the claim that other services were running. In the above background, we feel that the State Commission has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. In our view, the State Commission was right in considering the fact of cancellation and non-provision of alternate arrangements for travel of the Complainant in the background of the Telangana Bandh call. Therefore, the order of the State Commission in First Appeal No.198 of 2011 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision petition is consequently dismissed. No orders as to costs.