KAMLAKAR KASHINATH BADWA vs MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

THIS representative common cause complaint has been filed by five complainants alleging the deficient transport service by Opposite Party, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The nature of deficiency in service is attributed to the irregularity in plying the buses, which affects the regular passengers like students, employees, litigants and general public. Second important deficiency alleged is that no written plates are put on buses showing its destination. No proper announcements are made about the departure of buses as a result of which the travellers are put to difficulties. In order to support this allegation, the complainants have placed on record various photocopies of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation buses showing absence of destination plates and newspaper cuttings.

THE complainants alleged that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has been violating various rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. Notice with a copy of complaint under Section 13(2)(a) of the Act was sent to opposite party which is received by it on 21.5.1990. Postal acknowledgement is on record. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed written reply on 12.6.1990 in answer to the complaints. In its reply Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation stated in general that they are doing their utmost to maintain the regularity of buses plying on various routes, taking care of maintenance of buses and giving regular instructions to their staff. It is also admitted that regular complaint books are maintained in buses and if any complaints are received from public, actions are taken against drivers and conductors. It is also stated that arrangements are made for supervision of the operation of buses and staff.

But the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation denied that the complainants have suffered any injury and as such can claim no compensation. It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are general in nature. However, it is fairly admitted by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation that the complainants have shown keen interest in the working of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and made some complaint cum-suggestion. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation therefore, assured to give better service to the travellers.

IN view of the denial of the claim of the complainants for compensation, it has become a dispute within the meaning of Section 13(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for short the Act. The hearing of the complaint was fixed at Bombay for today. A notice of hearing was sent to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation the Opposite Party on 29.6.1990 which has been received on behalf of Opposite Party on 7.7.1990 and the postal acknowledgements is on record showing the valid service. When the complainant was called out none appeared till 5 P.M. on behalf of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Shri V.K. Dabhelkar from Nagar appeared for the complainants. We therefore proceeded ex-parte against Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to settle the consumer dispute under sub-Rule (8) of Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.

SHRI Dabholkar fairly did not press for compensation. However, according to him there are documents on record to show that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has committed the breach of rules under Motor Vehicle Act, by not putting boards on the various buses of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation showing the destination of the Buses. We have examined various photo copies which clearly show that there is no mention by any means to indicate the route of the buses. The buses undoubtedly belong to M.R.T.C. from their make and colour and further show that the photos were taken at Kedgaen and Nagar in Ahmednagar District. SHRI Dabholkar also drew our attention to newspaper cuttings and various copies of the complainants of the travellers voicing the deficiency in service of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. In our view the complaint as regards the deficiency in service pointed out in the complaint is true. But since SHRI Dabholkar does not press for the compensation, no relief of compensation is granted. However, SHRI Dabholkar contended that the complainants were compelled to file this complaint against M.S.R.T.C. for their neglect in rendering satisfactory service to the travellers. He further contended that in order to file this complaint, complainants were required to spent for legal consultation, for photographs typing etc. amounting to Rs. 1,200/-. An application by way of amendment claiming the costs has been filed today on behalf of complainants. Thus SHRI Dabholkar restricted his claim to the amount of costs of Rs. 1,200/- only. We are satisfied that the complainants have incurred the expenditure in persuing the complaint and therefore deserve the costs of complaint. We, therefore, find that the complaint as regards the deficiency in service of Opposite Party Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is proved. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation shall pay Rs. 1,200/- as costs of this complaint to complainants within a month from today. The motto of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation as found painted on their buses "Service to the Travellers" has to be proved by their performance. We are happy to record the written assurance given by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in their reply to the complain to serve the travellers better in view of the few suggestions made by complainants about punctuality, regularity and redressal of public complaints. Complaint disposed of accordingly.