Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs G. NATARAJAN -Respondent/Complainant

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30th day of November, 1998 in O.P. No. 175/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu.

THE appellants are the opposite parties while the respondent is the complainant. Facts, which are absolutely essential for the disposal of this action, may be related. The dispute involved is relatable to the altering of stage in the route and fixation of fare between two stages. According to the complainant, the bus 129-B of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation had been running between Chennai and Arumpuliyur. The complainant is a resident of Karumbakkam. The fare collected between Chengalpattu and Karumbakkam originally was Rs. 3.60 paise. The fare Rs. 3.60 paise had been arrived at by calculating the fare at 0.14 paise per km. It appears that the fare had been increased from 0.14 paise to 0.20 paise per km. on and from a specified date. Subsequent to the increase in fare per km., the fare levied between Chengalpattu and Karumbakkam was raised to Rs. 4.75 paise, that is to say, Re. 1.15 paise more than the original fare levied and collected. Nearly about 300 persons belonging to Karumbakkam used the bus route for covering the distance between Chengalpattu and Karumbakkam and such persons have to enormously lose everyday nearly about Rs. 600/-.

This sort of an act, the complainant would say, in altering the stage and levying higher fare than the original fare would tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. They have simply followed the Rule 246 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules 1989") and altered the stage and levied and collected the fare and such act on their part cannot at all be stated to amount to deficiency in service on their part. 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 parties and consequently directed the opposite parties to re-fix the stage at Karumbakkam and levy and collect the fare in accordance with the rule. THE Forum below further directed the opposite parties to pay compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the mental agony and anguish said to have been suffered by the complainant besides the payment of cost quantified in a sum of Rs. 200/-. THE further direction was that the award as made by the Forum below was required to be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of its order. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite parties resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsels M/s. P.G. Padmanabhan and G. Prabahari. On service of process, the respondent/complainant also entered appearance through Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. A. Dhiraviyanathan.

WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Sivaraman representing learned Counsel M/s. P.G. Padmanabhan and G. Prabahari appearing for the appellants/opposite parties and learned Counsel Ms. Ayisha Fathima representing learned Counsel Mr. A. Dhiraviyanathan appearing for the respondent/complainant.

FROM the pith and submission of learned Counsels representing the respective parties the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below as stated above is sustainable in law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Even at the outset we may state that the Presiding Deity of the Forum below, although referred to the Rule 246 of the Rules 1989, did not understand the purport or intendment of the said rule. If the Forum below read the said rule in the proper perspective, cock sure it is, we feel, the Forum below would not have committed a serious error of law in penning down the order now impugned in the present action. The power to fix or alter the stages for the stage carriages inheres in favour of the transport authority according to Rule 246 of Rules, 1989 and what he has to do while fixing or altering the stages for stage carriages is that he has to consult with such other authority as he may deem desirable and hear the representation of the operators in the said route. What is further mandated is that while fixing the stage, the distance between two stages should not exceed 5 kms. in the case of metropolitan city and town services. In the case of ordinary services, the distance between two stages should not exceed 8 kms. or be less than 4 kms. Likewise in the case of express service, the distance between two stages should not be less than 25 kms. There is also an explanation appended to the said rule and the explanation so appended prescribes that when a passenger gets into or gets down from a stage carriage at a place lying in between the stages, fare may be collected from him from the stage preceding the place where he gets into the bus to the stage succeeding the place where he gets down. It is thus crystal clear that the power inheres only in favour of the Transport Authority to fix or alter the stage and in the process of doing so, he has to take into consideration the parameters prescribed by the said rule and nothing further. The Forum below without understanding the intendment or the purport of the rule directed the opposite parties to refix the stage at Karumbakkam, which is not permissible in law. Once the stages are fixed or altered by the Transport Authority, the levy and collection of fare between the stages had to be done in the manner prescribed in the rule and the fare between Chengalpattu and Karumbakkam subsequent to the raise of the fare per kilometre from 0.14 paise to 0.20 paise had been refixed by taking into consideration the parameters prescribed in the said rule and in the process of doing so, the fare which was collected for covering the distance between Chengalpattu and Karumbakkam was raised from Rs. 3.60 paise to Rs. 4.75 paise. That sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties cannot at all be stated to be not in accordance with the parameters as prescribed by the said rule.

Pertinent it is at this juncture to refer to the decision in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. B.G. Sarang, III (1995) CPJ 40 (NC), wherein the National Commission held that the correctness or otherwise of the fares fares by the Government or State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority in exercise of its statutory powers cannot be questioned under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the reasons as above stated, it goes without saying that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

IN fine, the Appeal is allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside and the complaint itself is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.