ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Nobody appears for the respondent though notice was sent by registered post. A communication has been received from the petitioner that he is unable to come to Delhi and also being unable to engage a counsel.
2. Complainant is the petitioner before us. He filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and its officials – opposite parties – respondents. His complaint was allowed by the District Forum. On appeal filed by the opposite parties, his complaint was dismissed.
3. Petitioner travelled in the bus of the first respondent on 11.4.1998 from Palakkad to Alathur. He gave a note of Rs. 50/- to the conductor and he was issued a ticket of Rs. 7.00. The conductor was not having balance of Rs. 50.00 note. He, therefore, made an endorsement on the ticket requiring the petitioner to collect Rs. 43/- from the office of the second respondent being the District Transport Officer, Palakkad. Complaint of the petitioner was that in spite of his various visits to the office of the second respondent, he was not given the refund. District Forum allowing the complaint directed the respondents to refund Rs. 43/- and also awarded Rs. 500/- as compensation.
4. In the appeal filed by the respondents, State Commission noticed that though the conductor has deposited the amount in the office on 12.4.98 but the petitioner did not approach the office and the amount was therefore, remitted in the treasury. State Commission while setting aside the order of the District Forum directed second respondent to send the amount of Rs. 43/- to the petitioner at his own expense by money order. State Commission referred to the rules under which the amount had to be remitted to the treasury. It is also noticed that on the application by the petitioner for refund of the money second respondent made endorsement on the application stating ‘to verify and direct the conductor to his office” and said that this application should have been sent to the concerned office by messenger and not by the petitioner himself. This according to the State Commission, was against the rules and regulations. It said that this practice had to be condemend and discouraged. We do not think it was necessary for the State Commission to go into this question. On the refund of the amount of Rs. 43/- to the petitioner, we think State Commission has taken a too legalistic view of the matter. If only on the direction of the State Commission respondents were to send the amount of Rs. 43/-, they could have done on their own as well to save the harassment to the petitioner. We cannot accept the version of the respondents that for two months, the petitioner did not approach for the refund of the amount and that the amount had to be sent to the treasury. Respondents as a Public Service Body, it is there to help the passengers. In our view, State Commission should not have interfered wit the order of the District Forum. Award of compensation of Rs. 500/- would appear us to be correct. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. There shall be no order as to cost.