A consumer commission in Andhra Pradesh has ordered a bus service provider to compensate a college student Rs 73,000 after he missed his flight to Delhi. This incident occurred because the bus took an unannounced alternate route while traveling from Adoni to Bengaluru airport, where the student was supposed to catch his flight. The commission determined that the failure to adhere to the agreed-upon schedule and the lack of timely communication regarding the route change amounted to a deficiency in service.
The commission, led by President Karanam Kishore Kumar and including members N. Narayana Reddy and S. Nazima Kausar, specified that the operator must pay Rs 50,000 for the mental distress and inconvenience caused, Rs 10,000 to cover legal expenses, and Rs 13,000 for additional costs incurred, including the price for a new flight ticket and accommodation fees.
The commission emphasized that as a service provider, the bus operator was obligated to exercise due care and diligence in delivering transportation services according to the promised schedule. While minor delays are sometimes unavoidable in road transport, a significant, unexplained delay that results in a passenger missing a pre-booked flight is a failure to provide service with the necessary care and diligence.
The complainant had booked a flight from Bengaluru to Delhi, scheduled to depart at 10:50 AM. To ensure timely arrival at the airport, he purchased an overnight bus ticket from Adoni, scheduled to leave at 11:15 PM and arrive by 5 AM. However, during the journey, the bus unexpectedly diverted to a different route without prior notice to passengers. Despite assurances given at the time of boarding that the bus would arrive near the airport by 5:30 AM, it ultimately reached the destination at 11:30 AM, resulting in the student missing his flight.
As a consequence, the complainant had to secure a last-minute flight to Delhi later that day for Rs 8,000, in addition to incurring extra accommodation costs while waiting to travel.
The bus operator contended that their ticket terms permit alterations to routes and schedules based on operational needs, traffic conditions, or safety concerns. They argued that statements made by bus drivers do not constitute binding guarantees and that public transport operators are regulated under the Motor Vehicles Act.
However, the commission ruled that the general terms associated with the bus ticket do not provide a private operator with the right to alter routes without justifiable reasons or without notifying passengers. The commission noted that the operator failed to present evidence demonstrating that the significant delay was due to unavoidable circumstances, such as traffic issues or road closures, necessitating the route change.
“No substantial evidence has been provided to show that the considerable delay was caused by any unavoidable circumstance beyond the operator’s control. The complainant booked the bus based on the published schedule and arranged his subsequent flight accordingly. The planned arrival of the bus at around 5 AM and the flight’s departure at 10:50 AM allowed for a reasonable time gap. Therefore, the complainant should not be blamed for trusting the schedule provided by the bus operator,” the commission stated.
In light of the operator’s failure to justify the deviation from the scheduled route, the commission partially upheld the complaint and mandated the bus operator to pay a total of Rs 73,000 to the complainant.
Service providers cannot evade responsibility for uncommunicated route changes or significant delays purely by referencing standard terms and conditions. They must substantiate claims of unavoidable delays with documented evidence of emergencies.
Individuals with consumer grievances can reach out to their state’s consumer helpline (Andhra Pradesh: 0866–2551431) or contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
