S.P.THIRUMALA RAO vs M.D.KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

THE complainant in this case is the Secretary of the Karnataka Consumers'' Forum, Mysore. THE complainant states that the said Forum has been registered under the Societies Registration Act. In this complaint he has challenged the fare charged by the KSRTC for passengers travelling from Bangalore to Mysore and back during Dasara Festival of this year. He has prayed for issue of orders restraining the KSRTC from hiking the bus fare and also to issue permanent orders to the opposite party not to adopt this fare hikes under any circumstances.

THE complaint is resisted by the Respondent by contending inter alia that the complaint is not tenable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act''); that the Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint; that the increase in the fare during Dasara is approved by the State Government by Notification No. FTD 144 PMA 89 dated 4.5.1990 issued by Department of Transport and published in the Official Gazette dated 4.5.1990 and that the hike in the fare is justified regard being had to the facilities provided by the Corporation and other circumstances. The first question that arises for determination is whether the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The relief claimed by the complainant as stated above is in the nature of an injunction and the power of issuing injunctions has not been conferred under the Act on this Commission. Moreover, the provisions of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code also have not been made applicable to the proceedings before this Commission.

Complaint is defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. According to it, ''complaint'' means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that: (a) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damage; (b) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects; (c) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (d) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods.

THE reliefs to be granted by the State Commission are enumerated under Section 14 of the Act which is made applicable to the proceedings before this Commission by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. Section 14(1) of the Act reads thus:- "If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things, namely: (a) to remove defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party

. From Section 14(1), it is clear that the relief asked for by the complainant in this case cannot be granted by this Commission. The complainant urged that he would amend his prayer now for refund of the excess fare paid by the passengers to the KSRTC. The complainant has no right to get the excess fare paid by the passengers and the passengers who have paid excess fares have not filed complaints. The fixation of fare is a matter to be decided by the State Transport Authority subject to the rules made by the Government, according to Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The correctness or otherwise of the far fixed by the STA cannot be questioned before this Forum and it cannot be decided by the Commission. Charges in respect of the service cannot be questioned under the Act. It is only excess charges paid in respect of goods alone contrary to the fare fixed under any law, that can be ordered to be refunded by this Commission. Hence, we are clearly of the view that we cannot grant any relief to the complainant under the Act. On this point alone the complaint has to be dismissed and it is unnecessary to go into the other contentions raised on behalf of the Respondents.

IN the Result, the Complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we direct the Parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.