Relief at last for passenger barred from using toilet on overnight omni bus in TN

In response to an email Satish sent to the operator, Krish Travels, through their official mail id, had reiterated its ‘pee-only policy’ in the toilet facility inside the bus.
The passenger told the forum that while on board the Chennai-Coimbatore overnight bus, he was told by the staff that the loo should be used only for passing urine.
The passenger told the forum that while on board the Chennai-Coimbatore overnight bus, he was told by the staff that the loo should be used only for passing urine. (Photo | Express)
Updated on
2 min read

CHENNAI: The ‘relief’ was in sight but to no avail, as the passenger was told by the bus staff that the toilet inside the overnight private bus can be used only for urination and not defecation. And, five months down the line, on Thursday, a consumer disputes redressal forum slapped the bus operator a penalty of Rs 10,000 for deficiency in service.

The passenger, B Satishkumar (42), a resident of Perambur, told the forum that while on board the Chennai-Coimbatore overnight bus, he was told by the staff that the loo should be used only for passing urine. The signboard on the toilet door also said a Rs 1,000 fine will be levied if the toilet is used for anything other than passing urine.

In his complaint, Sathishkumar claimed he is prone to use the restroom frequently, and had selected the bus only because the operator mentioned the availability of the toilet facility inside the vehicle on the online site where he had booked the ticket that cost Rs 1,182.

In response to an email Satish sent to the operator, Krish Travels, through their official mail id, had reiterated its ‘pee-only policy’ in the toilet facility inside the bus.

The consumer forum comprising president D Gopinath and members Kavitha Kannan and V Ramamurthy took up Satish’s complaint filed under Section 35(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The bus operator did not file any documents before the forum and hence the case was decided ex-parte.

The forum studied the complaint and evidence submitted, and agreed with the complainant that the operator had given a misleading advertisement as per Section 2(28) of the Act and unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47)(d) of the Act.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Google Preferred source
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com