Subba Reddiar vs STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

WE are satisfied that this appeal has to be allowed. From the very documents produced by the opposite parties, it is clear that the vehicle did not reach Tindivanam as per the scheduled time but went to Tindivanam only at about 10.45 p.m. The vehicle left Chennai on 7.8.1998 at about 6.30 p.m. and it ought to have reached Tindivanam by or before 9.30 p.m. The complainant''s case is that on account of the delay, the complainant could not catch the connecting bus and that he had engaged a taxi to go to his place. The other allegation made by the complainant is that he was made to stand all the way from Chennai to Tindivanam though there was accommodation available for sitting. The trip sheet produced belies the case of the opposite parties. It shows that there were seats vacant and that passengers boarded the bus at Saidapet. The trip sheet also shows that it cannot be true that the bus was full when it left the bus stand at Chennai, on the other hand, passengers got in at passengers got in a Teynampet bus stop as well as at Saidapet. It is also seen that the bus reached Tindivanam only after considerable delay with the result that the complainant had to engage a taxi to go to his place. On the appreciation of the fact, the lower Forum has concluded that the complainant''s case is not true. But in the absence of any materials and in the state of the evidence produced before the Lower Forum, we are unable to accept the opposite party''s case to hold that the order of the Lower Forum is tenable. The lower Forum has failed to look into the trip sheet Ex. B1. It definitely shows that the bus took nearly 4 hours to reach Tindivanam though it left around 6.30 p.m. Chennai. It is further seen that at Teynampet and at Saidapet passengers boarded the bus. The complainant has appeared before this Commission and has argued the case himself. He impressed us as a truthful person. WE do not see any reason to reject his case. There cannot be any motive for him to make false accusation. The fact that he travelled on that day cannot be disputed and it is further proved by the bus ticket produced by him. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service in that the complainant though had a ticket was not permitted by the opposite party to sit and travel and that the opposite parties did not ply the bus in accordance with the timing with the result that it reached late accusing inconvenience and hardship to the passengers. Thus, there is deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable. Therefore, we hold that the appeal has to be accepted reversing the judgment of the lower Forum.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed but without cost setting aside the order of the lower Forum. We direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant within two months from today. Appeal allowed.