Tribunals and Commissions(1993) 03 NCDRC CK 0023

ARVINDBHAI CHUNILAL DAVE vs DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 22 March 1993 · Citation: 1993 3 CPJ 1608

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Shah , R.K.Shah J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed with costs

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 1,403 words
1.

THE appellant who is the original complainant is the President of Consumer Association, Mahudha had filed a complaint before District Forum, Kheda at Nadiad by way of public litigation.

2.

THE short facts of the case are that the opposite party the Gujarat State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as S.T. Corporation) is running buses from Dakore to Ahmedabad via Mahudha/Navodaya Vidhyalaya (Khatlal). THE distance from Mahudha to Navodaya Vidyalaya is less than 15 kms. which is 2.5 stages and, therefore, the charges for this distance would be only Rs. 2/-. However, different conductors charge different rates; one conductor charges Rs. 2/- and another conductor of another bus charges Rs. 2.50 and the people of this place have to enter into dispute time and again and after 14.3.91 mental agony has so much increased that most of the time persons who are travelling in bus have to quarrel with the conductors. According to the complainant, by taking these excess charges, the opposite party has earned very high amounts, has given mental torture to the complainant and other persons and he has, therefore, prayed for Rs. 1000/- for mental torture and Rs. 5/- towards refund of the amount which has actually been paid by him

The S.T. Corporation has filed its version and has raised preliminary contention that the District Forum had no jurisdiction. They have further stated that the opposite party is a Corporation doing public service and is trying its best to serve the people to the utmost satisfaction. According to the opinion of the Corporation the Navodaya Vidyalaya was three stages and not 2.5 stages but after hearing the representations of students and local leaders though they were considering it little higher than 2.5 stages, they have fixed the charges at Rs. 2/- and accordingly all employees were informed. When the complainant brought these facts to our notice they had issued orders to their employees to charge Rs. 2/- from Mahudha to Navodaya Vidhyalaya. According to the opposite party it is not the complainant who had suffered mental but the conductors have suffered mental torture. The written statement is signed by Legal Assistant and Advisor of ST Corporation and one Shri N.C. Rathod, Depot Manager at Mahudha has filed an affidavit.

3.

THAT the District Forum Kheda has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the distance between Mahudha and Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Khatlal was little more than 2.5 stages and according to the belief of the opposite party the distance between Mahudha and Navodava Vidhyalaya, Khatlal was little more than 2.5 stages and, therefore, they were charging the fare of 3 stages and relying upon this statement the District Forum has come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency of service and dismissed the complaint without considering the evidence on record. Unfortunately, there is no discussion also. We have heard the appellant-complainant and the learned Advocate at length. That the opposite party has neither given particulars nor proper reply regarding the abovementioned averments even though the Corporation was in possession of all the records and witnesses who could have thrown light on this contention. It may not be forgotten that the appellant has not come here only to recover Rs. 5/- but has filed this complaint as President of the Consumer Association who had written letters and spent considerable time and ultimately the ST Corporation had to accept the contention of the complainant by reducing the fare from Rs. 2.50 to Rs. 2/-. The averments made by the complainant are as under: - that the distance between Mahudha and Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Khatlal (formerly known as Pithai Fata stop) is 14.49 kms. according to the ST Corporation''s own fare table as shown in Exh. 11 page 28. - according to the Mile-stone the distance is 14.17 kms. as stated in Exh. 11. - that the conductors of Mahudha depot were charging Rs. 2/- as fare from Mahudha to Navodaya Vidyalaya, Khatlal whereas the conductors of buses coming from Dakore Depot were recovering Rs. 2.50 for the same distance. - that by letter dated 30.3.91 (Exh.9) the Divisional Controller, ST Corporation, Nadiad has written a letter to the effect that concerned persons have been instructed to stop bus at Pithai Fata (Navodaya Vidhyalaya) so as to relief the hardships of the passengers. He has further stated that "moreover the fares in local buses from Mahudha to Navodaya Vidyalaya is Rs. 2/-, Khatlal to Navodaya Vidhyalaya is Re. 1/- and Ahmedabad to Navodaya Vidhyalya is Rs. 6.50 which is according to rules which may be noted."

4.

WE have considered the affidavit filed by the ST Corporation and the evidence in support thereof and we are convinced that the distance between Mahudha and Navodaya Vidhyalaya is less than 15 kms. The ST Corporation has not produced any evidence to show that the distance is more than 15 kms. and the ST Corporation is charging Rs. 2.50. The burden is on the ST Corporation to show that the distance between these two places exceeds 15 kms. The next important thing is that the local buses starting from Mahudha, as a matter of fact, charge Rs. 2/- for going to Navodaya Vidhyalaya whereas other buses coming from Dakore were charging Rs. 2.50. The ST Corporation ought to have produced the fare chart or the material to show that as to how this fare was fixed by the Corporation. Mr. Joshi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the ST Corporation has relied upon the statutory notification and the schedule by producing the Government Gazette dated 24.10.90. According to our opinion this gazette does not help the Corporation but supports the say of the Complainant. Under the orders printed in the gazette, the ST Corporation can charge 80 paise per passenger per stage of 6 kms. or part thereof but 40 paise per sub-stage of 8 kms. or part thereof. The Corporation was, therefore, required to prove that the distance between these two places was exceeding 15 kms. which they have failed to prove.

5.

NOW, it is an admitted position that the complaint of the complainant has been heard and finally the Corporation is charging Rs. 2/- from Mahudha to Khatlal. We fail to understand that if the distance is exceeding 15 kms. or 2.5 stages how the Corporation can charge Rs. 2/- inspite of statutory gazette order. The very fact that the Corporation has amended its rules and started charging Rs. 2/- clearly shows that the charge of Rs. 2.50 from Mahudha to Navodaya Vidhyalaya was against rules. The letter of the Divisional Controller produced by the complainant also suggests that the charge of Rs. 2/- for this distance is in accordance with rules. We are, therefore of the opinion that the District Forum has committed an error of law as well as fact in arriving at the conclusion that the distance is more 15 kms.

6.

WE may point out that the belief of the ST Corporation has no evidential value unless the same is proved reliable and cogent evidence. The District Forum has committed an error in relying upon the belief of the Corporation inspite of the positive evidence on record. If the Corporation is charging higher fare than what is entitled to charge is definitely deficiency in service and, therefore, the opposite party is liable for damages. It is true that we have no material or estimate as to how much the ST Corporation has charged from the passengers. So far the complainant is concerned, he has paid Rs. 5/- more than legally due. The ST Corporation is, therefore, liable to return Rs. 5/-. This being a public interest litigation and the complainant has moved the District Forum to agitate, we feel that the complainant is entitled to be compensated both for hardship, pain and suffering as well as cost incurred by him and for the inconvenience caused to him. We, therefore, award Rs. 1000/- on this account. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The ST Corporation will pay Rs. 51- the excess amount recovered from the complainant and shall pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation for hardship, pain and suffering. The ST Corporation will also pay the cost of both the Courts which we quantify at Rs. 500/-. The ST Corporation shall pay these amounts within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal allowed with costs.