STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/415/2017 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC PRESENT ADDRESS - TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695023 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus RAJEEV K PILLAI PRESENT ADDRESS - KUTTIKKATTU, KONNAMANKARA, ADOOR P O, PATHANAMTHITTA-

691523 ,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 03/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.415/2017 JUDGEMENT DATED : 03.06.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.46/2016 on the files of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Transport Bhavan, East Fort, Fort P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 023

2. The District Transport Officer, KSRTC Depot, Pathanamthitta (by Adv. R. Vidhyadharan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Rajeev K. Pillai, S/o P. Kunjukrishna Pillai, Kuttikkaatu, Konnamankara, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta – 691 523

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite parties in C.C.No.46/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (the District Commission for short)

are the appellants.

2. The complainant has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following allegations:

The complainant is an Advocate practicing in Pathanamthitta. He used to travel in the KSRTC buses between Adoor and Pathanamthitta. According to him, the opposite parties had collected bus fare of Rs.36/-(Rupees Thirty Six only) from Adoor to Pathanamthitta in KURTC Volvo bus. But for the return journey Rs.39/-(Rupees Thirty Nine only) was collected as fare in the same class of vehicle. This difference in the ticket fare of the buses in the same route amounts to unfair trade practice and hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and costs.

st

3. The 1 opposite party entered appearance and filed a written version with the following contentions:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation of unfair trade practice is denied. They would admit the variation of to and fro ticket of KSRTC between Pathanamthitta and Adoor. According to them, there is difference of ticket fare in ordinary class of buses.

4. They had also filed an additional written version stating that the complainant had an option to avail a class of service in which he intends to travel. They relied upon Section 18 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1960 that “nothing in this Section shall be construed as imposing on a Corporation, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any Court or Tribunal to which it would not otherwise be subject”. According to them KSRTC is a public utility service to provide efficient, adequate and economical service for the benefit of the public. The bus fare is fixed on the basis of the fare stage fixed by the Government from time to time. There is no deficiency in service. Hence, they would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of the complainant PW1 was examined. Exhibits A1 series, A2 series, A3 and A4 were marked for the complainant. The opposite party had examined DW1. On evaluating the entire evidence, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to operate the service from Pathanamthitta to Adoor and vice-versa by an identical charge within 30 days of receipt of this order and issue a copy of this implementing order to the Forum. A default clause was also incorporated authorising the complainant to realise Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for non-compliance of the order along with interest @10% and costs Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) along with 10%

interest from the date of