THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPN. vs Siva Prasad

THE opposite party Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation against which an award has been passed is the appellant. THE four complainants purchased tickets on 29.5.1992 paying a sum of Rs. 170/- to go from Madras to Karaikal in a bus belonging to the opposite party. THEir case is that they boarded the bus at 6.30 p.m. on 30.5.1992 and the bus reached Sirkali around 1.30 a.m. THEre, according to the complainants, they were asked to get down from the bus stating that the bus cannot travel beyond Sirkali since it had no permit to enter into the Pondicherry State. At that time, the complainants had no means for travel to go to their destination. Due to the said deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, they were forced to spend the whole night at Sirkali with great mental agony. THE next morning, they engaged a taxi for Rs. 250/- to go to Sirkali and thereby they incurred unnecessary expenses. On account of this, the complainants have also suffered business loss. On these grounds the complaint was filed.

THE opposite party contended that since the usual bus from Madras to Karaikal was under repair and also since there was no other bus with permit to go into the Pondicherry State, they informed the complainants that the bus would go only upto Sirkali and that those who wanted to cancel their tickets could do so. But the complainants wanted to proceed in the bus which went upto Sirkali. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum held that it is true that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus holding, it awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the four complainant with a cost of Rs. 500/-.

Now in the appeal, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party and on going through the records, we find no compelling reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. It is common case that the complainants booked their tickets from Madras to Karaikal and they had to get down in the middle at Sirkali. The opposite party would contend that since the regular bus was under repair it could not be used, but they had a spare bus which did not hold a permit to go into the Pondicherry State and that on being informed by the opposite party about that, the complainants were prepared to go upto Sirkali in that bus, and therefore there was no deficiency in service on their part. But, there is no evidence to show that the complainants were informed so. It is not at all mentioned as to what had happened to the excess fare collected from the complainants that covered the distance from Sirkali to Karaikal if it is true that the complainants agreed to travel in the bus which did not have the permit to go to Pondicherry State. In these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As regards the compensation awarded, considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the four complainants and also the fact that they had to get down at Sirkali in the night, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- awarded as compensation appears to be reasonable.

IN this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.