{"id":29802,"date":"2026-09-28T11:04:58","date_gmt":"2026-09-28T11:04:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=29802"},"modified":"2026-09-28T11:04:58","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T11:04:58","slug":"ac-bus-booked-but-passenger-given-non-ac-ride-dropped-10-km-before-destination-consumer-court-orders-rs-31500","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=29802","title":{"rendered":"AC bus booked but passenger given non-AC ride, dropped 10 km before destination; consumer court orders Rs 31,500"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"AC<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: The Visakhapatnam district consumer commission has directed a bus operator to pay Rs 31,500 to a passenger who was charged for an AC bus but made to travel in a non-AC bus and dropped around 9-10 km before his destination at midnight. The commission awarded Rs 30,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 1,000 as litigation costs. The order was passed on September 15.Why did the passenger approach the consumer commission?<\/span>The complainant booked a bus journey from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry by paying Rs 1,200 through PhonePe. He alleged that he was assured that the journey would be in an AC bus but was instead made to travel in a non-AC bus, as per the commission order.The passenger further alleged that despite paying the fare, he was not given a physical ticket or booking slip and also was dropped around 9-10 km away from his destination.The complainant then claimed that he had to make arrangements for further transportation at midnight, causing inconvenience and hardship. He approached the bus operator seeking a refund of Rs 500, but said the request was refused.He later approached the national consumer helpline, but the complaint was disposed of without resolution due to procedural reasons. The bus operator did not respond to the consumer complaint and remained absent despite being served notice.What did the commission find?<\/span>The bench comprising President Gudla Tanuja <\/span>and members Varri Krishna Murthy <\/span>and Rahimunnisa Begum <\/span>examined the payment record and other documents submitted by the passenger. It found that Rs 1,200 had been paid for the journey and that the passenger had booked travel in an AC bus.The commission noted that the bus operator received the fare for an AC service but made the passenger travel in a non-AC bus. It also found that he was dropped at Kovvuru instead of Rajahmundry, despite the fare being paid for travel to Rajahmundry.“The complainant’s agony is that he booked a bus journey ticket with the opposite party for the journey from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry by paying an amount of Rs.1,200\/- for journey by AC bus whereas the complainant was made to travel by a non-ac bus. Despite payment of the fare of Rs.1,200\/- no physical ticket\/booking slip was handed over to him by the opposite party,” the commission observed.The commission said the passenger had been put to inconvenience, hardship, additional expenditure and mental agony because he had to arrange onward transportation from Kovvuru late at night.“The opposite party falls also under the purview of deficiency of service for forcibly dropping the complainant at Kovvuru (which is around 9 to 10 kms from Rajahmundry) instead of Rajahmundry for which an consideration was received. In view of the above pleadings point No 1 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party,” the commission added.The commission held that the bus operator could not avoid liability for providing a non-AC bus when it had received the fare for an AC service. It also held that dropping the passenger at Kovvuru instead of Rajahmundry amounted to deficiency in service.What did the consumer commission order?<\/span>The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam, directed the bus operator to:<\/p>\n

\n