Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. 65/2014 ( Date of Filing : 11 Mar 2014 ) 1. S.Sripati Prusty,S/O-Late-Hari Hara Prusty. At/Po-Balimela,Ps.Orkel,Dist-Malkangiri,Odisha. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. D.T.M (A),O.S.R.T.C,Jeypore jeypore,Dist-Koraput,Odisha. Koraput Odisha ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Choudury PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sabita Samantray MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 09 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he on behalf of the Co-passengers intended to have a visit/journey from Jeypore to Vijaywada, Rajmundry, Bhadrachalam, Penamkonda via-Balimela and made an agreement on 15.02.2012 with the O.P. for two numbers of Hi-Comf Bus bearing Regd.No. OR-10-H-7288 & OR-10-H-7291 and paid Rs. 98,880/- vide MR no. 94/4705 and MR no. 41/4706 dated 15.02.2012 towards bus fare and security deposit and Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 530/- towards route permit and toll tax. Further he alleges that that on 16.02.2012 both the buses were detained for 12 hours at concerned check gate near Andhra Pradesh for want of route permit, for which the buses were reached at Jeypore on 19.02.2012 instead of 18.02.2012. The complainant further alleges that due calculation as per rate chart, the O.P is yet to refund an amount of Rs. 23,432/- to him, as such he sent a legal notice to the O.P. wherein, the O.P. on return demanded Rs. 18,854/- from him, thus with other contentions, alleging deficiency in service, mental agony and physical harassment, the complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund Rs. 23,432/- with interest @ 12% and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him. On the other hand, the Opp. Party appeared in this case, filed their written version denying the allegations of the complainant stated the complainant is not a consumer as he has filed the present case on behalf of Co-passengers and he has not been authorized by such passengers and also stated that complainant made an application on 06.02.2012 to DTM, OSRTC, Jeypore for two number of buses as alleged with an agreement made with the DTM, OSRTC, Jeypore with certain terms and conditions and two numbers of money receipts were issued for Rs. 15,000/- vide MR no. 94/4705 dated 06.02.2012 and Rs. 83,880/- vide MR no.41/4706 dated 15.02.2016 for the journey of the said buses in that regad. Further they have contended that at the check gate near Dist. Khammam, the concerned authority of Andhra Pradesh Transport Department collected Rs. 350/- per each passenger amounting to Rs. 36,400/- which will be borne by the complainant as per their agreement executed between the complainant with the O.P. Further their contentions is that the balance amount of Rs. 18,854/- is to be paid by the complainant as per their calculation sheet, for which they have intimated the complainant vide letter no. 47/accts. Dated 07.03.2012 and also they issued the legal notice vide no. kns/legal/notice/172/13 dated 24.01.2013 being received by the complainant, as such with contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against him. Complainant though has raised the present disputes, but did not file any supportive documents and also not participated in the hearing inspite of repeated adjournments were given to him keeping in view of the natural justice, as such we lost opportunities to be heard from the complainant. On the other hand, the A/R for Opp. Party filed certain decisions of Higher Forum challenging the maintainability of the present case. Heard from the O.P. through their respective A/R at length and perused the materials available on record. Before going to the merit of the case, we decided to analyze the contentions raised by the Opp. Party regarding the maintainability of the case on the point that the complainant is not a consumer. We perused the complaint petition, and counter and decision of Hon?ble National Commission filed by the Opp. Party. It is found that as per complaint petition, the complainant has clearly stated in para no. 2 that ?That the complainant on behalf of the co-passengers intended to have a visit / journey from Jeypore to Vijayawada, Rajmundry, Bhadrachalam, Penamkonda via Balimela and accordingly, as per an agreement dated 15.02.2012 made between the complainant and the Opposite party, two nos. of Hi-Comf bus (OR10H-7288 & OR10H-7291 were reserved for the said purpose.? From the above submission, it is clearly evident that the complainant has filed the present case on behalf of the Co-passengers but not for his own and also has not obtained any documents showing any authorization made in his favour by any of the co-passengers, as such the complainant has miserably failed to establish his submissions. Further we have gone the counter versions filed by the opposite party wherein they have clearly mentioned in para no. 3 that ?it is submitted that the complainant has filed this case on behalf of Co-passengers and for that the present case is not maintainable on the point of one person cannot file any complain for the benefit of others and also the complainant has not been authorized by the other passengers.? From which, it is observed that the opposite party has strictly challenged the status of the complainant as a consumer. And in that regard, the opposite party have filed the verdicts of the Hon?ble National Commission in the case between Commissioner of Transport Vrs. Y.R. Grover, reported in 1994 (1) CPJ 199 and in another case between Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahemedabad Vrs. Indian Airlines Corporation, N.D., reported in 1992 (1) CPJ 38, wherein Hon?ble Commission has held that ? A complaint by an individual on behalf of general public is not permitted?. Hence it is concluded that the a complaint on behalf of public which consists of unidentified consumers cannot be filed under the Act, as well, it is also clearly evident that no passengers who boarded the buses came forward or authorized the complainant to make the complaint. Hence, it is clear and prima facie concluded that since the complainant has filed the present case on behalf of other co-passengers who are unidentified in nature, as such the complainant is not consumer under the Opposite party as per the Act, 1986 and complaint petition is having no merit in its own face and instead of going to the merit of the case, we are not inclined to pass any order in favour of the complainant. Hence this order. ORDER Considering the fact of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit. No order as to costs. Parties to bear their own costs. Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of January, 2018. Issue free copy to the parties concerned. Sd/- Sd/- Member President (I/c) Back Print [HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Choudury] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sabita Samantray] MEMBER