Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs C DHANAPALAN

-THE opposite party in O. P. No. 124/2001 on the file of District Forum, Nagercoil is the appellant herein.

THE case lies in a very narrow compass. The first complainant, a Coolie by profession, had on 11. 6. 2001, in order to go to Nagercoil, boarded a bus at Thingal Nagar. He tendered a 100 rupee note to the conductor of the said bus and purchased a ticket for Rs. 3. 50 for his journey to Nagercoil from Thingal Nagar. But balance of Rs. 96. 50 was not given by the conductor. The first complainant requested the conductor to make a note of that on the ticket. The conductor told the first complainant that he would pay the balance after reaching Nagercoil bus stand. When on reaching Nagercoil, the first complainant made request to the conductor to return the balance amount. The conductor replied that he was not remembering whether the first complainant tendered Rs. 100 or not. The first complainant explained in detail as to what happened. But the explanation was not acceptable to the conductor. The conductor used harsh words towards him and hurt his feelings. He also abused the first complainant in the presence of public. The complainant made representation to the time keeper. On the advice of the time keeper, he sent a complaint to the opposite party. Without money, the first complainant had to borrow from third parties for bus fare and return home. This caused mental agony to the first complainant. On receipt of the complaint by the opposite party, the first complainant was required to send the original ticket. The complainant sent a copy of the ticket along with a letter on 12. 7. 2001. The opposite party sent Rs. 91 by money order to the first complainant on 23. 8. 2001. As the balance payable was Rs. 96. 50 and a lower amount had been sent, the first complainant returned the money order. Thereafter, he sent a complaint to the second complainant on 23. 9. 2001. The second complainant sent a letter to the opposite party asking for their explanation. On 8. 11. 2001, the opposite party sent Rs. 97 by money order. The first complainant did not receive the money order. There was no reply to the second complainant''s letter to the opposite party. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 96. 50 towards balance amount, Rs. 300 towards travel and other expenses and Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for mental agony. The opposite party resisted the complaint contending inter alia as follows : There was no demand for endorsement on the ticket. On arrival at Nagercoil, bus stand, the conductor had made a pious and polite request to the first complainant to get cost of the ticket, viz. , Rs. 3. 50 from the nearby shop. But the complainant had walked away saying in a loud voice that he would get the balance from the appropriate place. He did not turn up to receive the balance amount till the closure of the duty of the conductor. The conductor remitted Rs. 96. 50 to the Corporation as passenger refund at the time of finishing his duty on 11. 6. 2001. The conductor did not use any abusive language. On receipt of the complaint dated 11. 6. 2001, the opposite party requested the first complainant to surrender the original ticket who has to refund the amount as per normal procedure in vogue. The original ticket was not produced. On 20. 8. 2001, the opposite party sent Rs. 91 to the first complainant by money order after deducting the money order commission. It was refused. As a gesture of goodwill, on 6. 11. 2001, the opposite party sent Rs. 97 without dedcuting money order commission. This was also refused by the first complainant. The sincere and honest efforts were taken by the conductor and the Corporation within the frame work of routine administrative procedure to refund the amount to the passenger, though it was written in the bus in bold letters in vernacular language calling upon the passengers to tender exact fare. There was no cause of action for the first complainant to file the complaint. The opposite party was not liable to pay any compensation. There was no deficiency in service.

Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant, Ex. A1 to Ex. A8 were marked while on the side of the opposite party, Ex. B1 to Ex. B6 were marked. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and following the order of the National Commission, in Sri Valsan v. Kerala State Transport Corporation and Another, 2001 (3) CPR 100 (NC), held that the opposite party being a Public Service body was to help the passengers and failure to refund the amount was a deficiency in service. In that view of the order, by order dated 27. 3. 2002, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 96. 50 to the complainant towards balance amount due, Rs. 100 towards travel and postage expenses and Rs. 1,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500 towards costs. It is as against that, the present appeal has been filed.

ON behalf of the opposite party/appellant, the learned Counsel submitted that the Corporation having taken bona fide and sincere steps immediately to redress the grievance of the first complainant by returning the balance, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. If only the first complainant had forwarded the original ticket, the opposite party would have acted faster. But primary fault lay in the first complainant tendering Rs. 100 for a ticket of Rs. 3. 50 and also for not returning the original ticket. The District Forum ought to have held that there was no deficiency in service. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it was a common phenomenon that passengers who boarded the Government buses were not treated with respect and on the contrary, they were shown disrespect. They were abused. They very often forgot that they were to serve the general public and they could not get away by abuse and haggling.

WE have gone through the materials on record. We are satisfied that the District Forum had rightly found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The first complainant had travelled from Thingal Nagar to Nagercoil. It is not disputed that he tendered Rs. 100. If the conductor was not in a position to return the balance immediately, it was his duty to have made necessary endorsement on the back of the ticket so as to enable the complainant to recover the balance amount latter showing the endorsement on the ticket. It would appear that no such endorsement was made in the present case. It is very likely that the conductor refused to give the balance to the first complainant and because of that, the first complainant was put to inconvenience. Even though the first complainant made an application for refund at the earliest point of time, it was returned after considerable delay and that too, after deducting the money order commission. This was clear deficiency in service on the part of the conductor of the opposite party. The conductor had not made a note of the balance amount on the ticket and failure to return the balance amount, when demanded by a bona fide passenger and harassing him and provoking him to make a complaint and pursue it with correspondence clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In that view of the matter, we confirm the decision of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed. We wish to observe that it is time that employees of the public bodies started treating the travelling public with respect and consideration and not use abusive language. The happening narrated in the present complaint is frequently reported against conductors and drivers of Government operated transport corporations. They have little or no regard for the feelings of the commuters. It is time that they got civlized and behaved themselves. Appeal dismissed.