AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD . Petitioner/Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin (for short, ''District Forum'') alleging that on 29.10.2008 he travelled from Madurai to Thootukudi in the bus belonging to Respondents/opposite parties. It was a super -fast service. The conductor demanded Rs. 60 stating that the ticket in the 1 to 1 service was Rs. 60. Case of petitioner is that the normal fare was only Rs. 48. Thus, alleging deficiency in service against the respondents, he has prayed that the excess fare collected by the respondents is illegal and to refund the excess fare amount of Rs. 12 with interest @ 12% per annum; to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and suffering with interest @ 12% per annum; to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as expenses for legal notice with interest @ 12% per annum and to pay the cost of litigation.
RESPONDENTS in their written statement took the plea that bus carried a name board ''Special Service'' and ''Fare as Rs. 60''. Due to the festival season before Dipawali, special service was arranged from various towns. The conductor collected only the actual fare fixed the Respondent which was Rs. 58, which was rounded to Rs. 60. It is further stated that petitioner not appear for enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, instead he filed the consumer complaint Thus, mere is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, vide its order dated 4.6.2010 allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and also to pay Rs. 5,000 towards cost of the proceedings.
BEING aggrieved, respondents filed an appeal before Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, ''State Commission'') which vide its impugned order dated 10.2.2012, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
HENCE , this revision. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
STATE Commission, in its impugned order observed: 12. After perusing the material records this Commission comes to the following conclusion. The complainant averred in his complaint that the normal fare from Madurai to Tuticorin was Rs. 48 and for Super Fast Service, the conductor collected Rs. 60. He stated that the bus was Super Fast Service and the fare ought to be collected Rs. 0.38 paise. By his own documents Ex. A7 dated 5.1.2009 and Ex A9 dated 12.2.2010 one from the Transport Corporation explaining the rate per kilometre and the document by National Highways Authority the distance from Madurai to Tuticorin was 147.8 kilometres. The opposite party justified the fare with a reasoning that the fare calculated as per distance was Rs. 58 which was rounded off to Rs. 60. Such an agreement of the appellant is really convincing. The complainant has not come with clean hands. He claimed that he is reputed businessman but averred that he was having only Rs. 50 and had to borrow Rs. 10 from co -passengers. Such an averment by the complainant is not in accordance with his disposition as businessman. The complainant has spent lot of time and money in trying to prove that excess amount of Rs. 12 was collected by the opposite parties. The opposite parties were executing administrative orders which were based on the Government policy. It is not case of the complainant that the conductor collected excess amount. The opposite parties/appellants alleged that the complainant did not appear before the inquiry conducted by the officials of the opposite parties. When the complainant has knocked the doors of so many Government offices and even the High Court by way of a writ it is really surprising that he did not appear before the inquiry officer as to know what the conduct has to say. Though the complainant has not thrown any allegation against the conductor, the conductor is the representative of the opposite parties who is competent to report the happenings on the day of travel and also to clarify whether it was a Super Fast Service as alleged by the complainant or Special Service as stated by the opposite parties.
We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has erroneously passed an order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the entire order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint.
ALONG with present petition, petitioner has filed an application seeking permission to file certain additional documents. Petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that the fare for special bus in which he travelled on 29.10.2008 was Rs. 48. Further, the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2009, whereas the additional documents which petitioner now wants to file before the Commission are subsequent to the date of incident. Thus, none of these documents are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties.
RECENTLY , Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani and Another, IV : (2012) CPJ 5 (SC) : VII : (2012) SLT 274, where the debt amount being a paltry sum of Rs. 15,000 was not settled by the bank, it held: Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come Courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers'' skin. Judicial system is over burdened, naturally causes in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the Courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion this Court has reminded the Central Government, State Government and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons of the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked or resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to Courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.
ABOVE observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since in the case in hand, a paltry sum of Rs. 12 only is involved. It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
ACCORDINGLY , we do not find any ambiguity or illegality in the order passed by the State Commission. Moreover by filing the present petition for a paltry sum of Rs. 12 only, petitioner has abused the process of law and wasted precious time of this Commission. In order to curb such type of litigation, we have no option but to impose cost upon the petitioner for filing this meritless petition.
ACCORDINGLY , we dismiss the present petition with cost of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission, within four weeks.
IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. List on 14.3.2014 for compliance.