Consumer court fines BMTC for bus conductor's refusal to return Re.1 to passenger
Consumer court fines BMTC for bus conductor's refusal to return Re.1 to passenger
Orders the state-owned public transport corporation to pay Rs.3000 as compensation and litigation cost to the commuter
A consumer court in Bengaluru has lauded the effort of a consumer, who approached the forum on being short-changed for Re.1 by a bus conductor of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC).
Vide its 31 January order, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed a part complaint filed by advocate Ramesh Naik L. It directed the Corporation to refund Re.1 to him and also pay a compensation amount of Rs.2,000 towards deficiency of service, along with Rs.1,000 towards the cost of litigation, within 45 days.
The Commission further stated that if the order was not complied with, the complainant was at liberty to file a criminal case against the managing director of the Corporation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
It added, "The dispute appears trivial in nature since the complainant took the issue as a matter of right before the Commission. It needs to be appreciated and recognized as a matter of the right of a consumer."
The complainant explained that on 11 September 2019, he was travelling in the BMTC Volvo bus from Shanthinagar Bus station to Majestic. The lady conductor issued a ticket for Rs.29, but collected Rs.30 from him. He alleged that when he demanded Re.1 back, the conductor refused. In addition, she behaved rudely and shouted at the complainant as if he should not have asked her to return Re.1.
Thereafter, Naik approached the Commission seeking relief of a Re.1 refund, including Rs.15,000 as damages.
Denying any deficiency in services, the BMTC contended that the non-payment of Re.1 was a trivial matter, but the complainant had made it a big issue.
While the Commission said the allegation of the non-refund of Re.1 was a proven fact, it rejected the damages amount.
The forum stated, "The issue of non-refund of Re.1 is a small claim. The OP employee by refusing to give the same conducted negligent and careless service to the complainant. But in order to get the damages of Rs.15,000 the complainant has to establish his entitlement to damage. In order to get an order, the Commission requires strong proof. In absence of any evidence from the complainant's side, the Commission cannot grant relief of damages. The prayer for damages is liable to be rejected."
Thus, refusing the payment of damages, the Commission ordered that Rs. 2,000 be paid to the complainant for deficiency of service and Rs.1,000 as litigation cost.
