Depot Manager, APSRTC vs DISTRICT CONSUMER COUNCIL, TIRUPTAHTI

THIS is a Revision Petition filed by the opposite parties who were arrayed in the complaint as opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. The complaint was filed before the District Forum, Chittor by the present respondent, District Consumer Council. The District Forum directed the opposite parties to run the shuttle bus services reaching Srikalahasthi from Tirupathi, Gankatagiri and other places to go into the town without terminating their services at the end of the bridge over Swarnamukhi river. Feeling aggrieved against that order the present petitioners who are the different officials of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) filed appeal before the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence the present Revision Petition impugning the order of the State Commission. The parties will be referred to by their nomenclature as in the complaint.

IN the complaint the allegations were to the effect that the Corporation was running shuttle bus services between Srikalahasti and Venkatagiri and from some other places. IN the case of incoming buses to Srikalahasti the buses have to pass over the bridge over Swarnamukhi river to reach bus station of Srikalahasti which is at a distance of about 2 kms. from the other side of the bridge. Now the buses are being terminated at the other side of the bridge and the passengers have to make their own arrangements to reach the bus station or the town of Srikalahasti. The matterwas taken up with the Depot Manager of Srikalahasti but he was throwing blame on the Traffic Police of Srikalahasti. The matterwas enquired with the traffic police who informed the complainant that additional personnel were deputed to regulate the traffic at Srikalahasti and also at the bridge point near Swarnamukhi river. Thus there was no justification for the Corporation to terminate the shuttle services at the other point of the bridge causing inconvenience to the passengers on the plea of traffic problem. It was further averred by the complainant that other express service buses are going upto the RTC bus station and it is only the shuttle services which are terminated at the bridge point. Hence it was prayed by the complainant that the opposite parties be directed not to terminate the bus services at the bridge point and to operate the same upto the bus station of Srikalahasti. The opposite parties in their statement of objections admitted that the shuttle services were being terminated at the bridge point. According to them the bus station is only 1 km. away from that point. The shuttle services are terminated at the bridge point due to increase of traffic and to avoid traffic Jams on account of direction of Municipal Administration and police and law and order situation. There was a meeting in this connection between the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikalahasti Temple and the opposite parties and it was decided to put up passenger shed at the central point opposite ZPP Guest House and to terminate the incoming shuttle a services at that point to relieve traffic congestion. This decision was taken in the interest of public.

The District Forum held that the complainants were right in asking extension of the shuttle services beyond the other end of the bridge upto the bus stations as the passengers were being forced to cover the rest of the journey to Srikalahasti town and temple as well as the Bus stand which was far away and therefore it was causing inconvenience to them. The District Forum further held that the termination of the incoming shuttle services at the bridge point is arbitrary particularly when the opposite parties have admitted that the express buses are going into Srikalahasti town. As noticed above, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to run the shuttle services reaching Srikalahasti without terminating the same at the other end of the bridge over Swarnamukhi river.

IN appeal filed by the opposite parties the State Commission observed that it has not been shown by the opposite parties if the permit was granted to run the shuttle services upto the bridge point or the permit was upto Srikalahasti Bus Stand. It was further remarked that if the permit is upto Srikalahasti Bus Stand the opposite parties are bound to cover the distance in accordance with the terms of the permit and as the permit has not been produced to show that it was only upto the bridge point the opposite parties could not terminate the shuttle service at that point. Accordingly the order of the District Forum was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. The order of the State Commission has been impugned in this Revision Petition by the opposite parties. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. None appeared for the respondent. We are of opinion that the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are vitiated by exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. There is no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation in transporting the passengers from Tirupathi and other places up to the bridge over river Swarnamukhi in Srikalahasti. The only grievance of the complainant is that on reaching Srikalahasti the shuttle services are terminated at the other end of the bridge over river Swarnamukhi and do not go upto the Bus Station of Srikalahasti or into that town. There is nothing on the file to show that the bridge in question is not situated within the boundary of Srikalahasti town. The Corporation will be deemed to have contracted with the passengers to carry them safely up Srikalahasti town. As noticed above no deficiency in service is alleged on that part of the service. The only grievance of the complainant is that the shuttle services do not reach the Bus Station of Srikalahasti or in the said town while express buses go in the town. We have not been able to appreciate this grievance of the complainant. If on account of congestion in the town the Corporation terminates its services at some point in the town instead of the bus station then it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service. It is common knowledge that when the town gets congested due to increase in traffic and other reasons the bus stops are shifted from one place to another. Though in the present case the Bus Station itself has not been shifted and the express buses reach that point. It is only the shuttle services which terminate at some other point in the town.

FROM the beginning the case of the opposite parties has been that the termination of the shuttle services at the other end of the bridge of Swarnamukhi river is not an arbitrary action of the Corporation since all the local authorities were involved in taking the decision of terminating the shuttle services at the other end of the bridge over Swarnamukhi river. As Srikalahasti is a temple town where large number of pilgrims visit the temple, therefore, for the smooth traffic condition the shuttle services have been made to end at the other end of the bridge. The opposite parties have filed minutes of the proceedings of the traffic meeting held on 22nd March, 1989 in the office of the Sub-Division Police Officer, Srikalahasti in which the said Police Officer and other Officers of the Municipal Committee, Executive Officer of Srikalahasteeswara Swamy Temple, Depot Manager of the Corporation at Srikalahasti and the Motor Vehicle Inspector took part. In that meeting it was noticed that number of prilgrims are visiting the temple and there is heavy vehicular traffic in the town and every day there is traffic Jam due to the narrow bridge over the Swarnamukhi river and therefore keeping in view the importance of the town and traffic safety it was decided to take the measures mentioned in the minutes to improve traffic Jams in Srikalahasti Municipal Area. One of the measures agreed upon to aviod traffic Jams it was to shift the Bus Stand from the cart street to the open space situated opposite to Z.P.P., Guest House, Srikalahasti. Other steps taken in that meeting are not relevant for the purpose of this order. FROM these facts it is clear that the action of the Corporation to stop buses at the other end of the bridge over Swarnamukhi river is not arbitrary but has been forced upon them keeping in view the public interest at large to avoid congestion at the bridge and in the temple town. Hence we do not find any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and the manner of performance of the service which is being rendered by the Corporation. It will not be out of place to mention her that according to the written submissions submitted on behalf of the Revision Petitioners the bridge in question is in the centre of the town. In the light of the above observations, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the order of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. No costs. Revision petition accepted. _____________