The early departure of the bus without the passengers boarding constituted a deficiency in service, and the respondents were held responsible for the illegal and deficient service.

ORDER :

NOUSHAD ALI, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant against the order dated 29.6.2015 in C.C.No.33/2015 passed by the District Forum, Kadapa.

2. The appellant/complainant purchased bus ticket (Ex.A.1) reserving seats for himself, his wife and his daughter to travel from Kadapa to Srisailam on 15.11.2014 at 1.45 a.m. Seat Nos. 3, 4 and 16 were reserved for them in Bus Service No. 6492 whose departure time was 1.45 hours. The complainant along with his wife and daughter reached the bus station well in advance by 1.15 a.m. After having waited for five minutes, he learnt from the announcer who was asleep by then that the bus had left the station before 1.30 hours. The announcer endorsed the said fact on the reverse of Ex.A.1 ticket. The complainant having thus missed the bus addressed Ex.A.2 notice dated 15.11.2014 to the 1st Respondent Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa. He demanded refund of the fare for having deprived him of the journey. As there was no response, he addressed another letter, this time to both the respondents. He received reply dated 27.3.2015 from the 2nd Respondent Depot Manager marked as Ex. A.3. The 2nd Respondent expressed regrets for the inconvenience caused due to the early departure of the bus and informed that the complaint was being forwarded to the Depot Manager, Atmakur for taking suitable action against the crew responsible for the lapse. As no further development was informed to the appellant, more so about the refund of the fare, the complainant approached the Forum. Besides refund of the fare, he prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 1,500 as costs of correspondence and Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation.

3. The respondents filed version admitting the fact that the appellant had purchased reserved tickets. The respondents, however, denied having committed deficiency stating that the bus service in question belonged to Atmakur Depot and as such the service was not under their control. They found fault with the driver of the bus. They also contended that they were not necessary parties to the complaint.

4. The complaint having been dismissed, the complainant has filed this appeal.

5. Heard the appellant, who has appeared in person and Mr. M. Pratap Reddy, Counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

6. On a serious consideration, this Commission finds that the Forum has dismissed the complaint on conjectures without considering the material on record. The Forum noticed the fact that the right departure time was 1.45 a.m. Having thus noticed, the Forum ought to have examined whether the bus had departed as per the schedule and whether the complainant was present to board the bus. Unfortunately, the Forum did not examine this aspect of the matter, but it went on stating that State buses would generally come late and on that basis suspected the version of the complainant that he had reached the bus station at 1.15 a.m. This Commission finds that there is no basis for the suspicion so entertained by the Forum. On the other hand, Ex.A.1 bus ticket clearly discloses that the appellant was present in the bus station in advance. It is evident from the endorsement of the announcer that the bus had left by 1.30 a.m. Apart from Ex.A.1 there is an admission by respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 27.3.2015 (Ex.A.3) wherein besides expressing regrets he admitted the early departure of the bus. In this view of the matter, this Commission is constrained to hold that the order of the Forum is not sustainable.

7. Having held so, the question is whether the respondents are guilty of committing deficiency in service and whether the appellant is entitled for any relief.

8. Admittedly, the appellant had reserved tickets to travel by a Stage Carriage run by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation in brief) which is a State Transport Undertaking, a monopoly Stage Carriage operator in the State. Like any other private operators, the Corporation should o