AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27th day of October, 1998 in O.P. No. 34/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri.
THE appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration.
The complainant, it is said, boarded the town bus route No. 19B at Hosur for proceeding to Thalli and purchased a ticket for Rs. 3.50 paise. The town bus, it appears, broke down in the midst of the journey.
THE complainant would say that the conductor of the bus in which he was travelling neither refunded the proportionate fare for making onward journey from the place where the bus broke down to the destination for which the ticket has been purchased nor made any alternative arrangement for completing the journey. This sort of an act on the part of the conductor, he would say, would tantamount to deficiency in service on his part. In such a backdrop and setting, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
THE opposite party filed a version. In the version so filed, it is said that the town bus route No. 19B which proceeded from Hosur to Thalli at 3.05 p.m. actually broke down when it neared Anthiwadi Check Post. THE conductor of the bus made alternative arrangement to all the passengers in the bus to have their travel upto the point of destination by making them boarded into other buses coming that way with instruction to the passengers that the tickets they purchased must be kept and shown to the conductor of the bus in which they were again boarded for travel to their destinations. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ultimately dismissed the complaint directing the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellant/complainant resorted to the present action in person.
ON service of process, the opposite party also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. T. Chandrasekaran.
WHEN the matter came up for hearing before us today, the appellant/complainant appearing in person is called; absent. The fact that the appellant/complainant was called; absence does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits. We heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. L. Gopi representing learned Counsel Mr. T. Chandrasekaran appearing for the respondent/opposite party. We perused the materials placed on record. From such perusal, we are able to discern that the complainant did not at all purchase a ticket for Rs. 3.50 paise for his journey from Hosur to Thalli as stated by him in his complaint. The ticket he had marked as Ex. A1 is one purchased for Rs. 2.40. There is no assemblance of proof of what he had stated in the complaint. In such circumstances, the Forum below did not at all accept the case as put forward by the complainant and consequently dismissed the complaint. The dismissal of the complaint in such circumstances cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.
In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.