The consumer court in Bengaluru observed in the case Ramesh Naik.L And Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation and has appreciated the effort of the consumer, who approached the consumer forum who is being after shortchanged for Rs 1 by a bus conductor of the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation.
However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated January 31, wherein allowed the part of a complaint which is being filed by Advocate Ramesh Naik L and has directed the Corporation to refund Rs 1 to him and to pay compensation of Rs 2,000 towards deficiency of service along with Rs 1,000 towards cost of litigation, within 45 days.
Further, it has been stated if the said order is not complied with, the complainant is at liberty for filing of a criminal complaint against the Managing Director of the Corporation as provided under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
It has been stated by the commission that the dispute which is appeared to be trivial in nature since the complainant took the present issue as a matter of right before the Commission. Therefore, the same needs to be appreciated and recognized as a matter of right of a consumer.
It has been stated by the complainant that the complainant was travelling in the BMTC Volvo bus on 11.09.2019 from Shanthinagar Bus station to Majestic. A ticket has been issued by the lady conductor of the bus issued a ticket for Rs 29 but she collected Rs 30 from him wherein it has been alleged by the complainant that when the complainant demanded Rs 1 back which the conductor refused to pay and started behaving rudely and shouting at the complainant “as if the commuter should not have asked for Rs 1 change.
Therefore, Naik approached the commission wherein seeking relief of refund for Rs 1 along with other relief and damages which are being caused of Rs 15,000.
It has also been claimed by BMTC which denied any deficiency in services and it has been contended that the non-payment of Rs 1 is a trivial issue but the said complainant in the case is trying to make it a big issue.
It has also been stated by commission that the allegation which are made with respect to the non-refund of the change of Rs 1 appears to be proven fact.
Accordingly, the issue of non-refund of Rs 1 being a small claim. Thus, the OP employee refused to give the same by conducting negligent and careless service to the complainant. The complainant in order to get the damages of Rs 15,000 needs to establish the entitlement of his damage.
Therefore, the commission requires a small proof in order to strong proof, in absence of any evidence whoch being from the side of the complainant Commission which cannot grant a relief of damages. Thus, the prayer of the damages is being set liable to be rejected.
