Journalism of Courage
‘Moved’ from reserved seat, elderly couple wins Rs 30,000 payout from bus operator
The Kanker District Consumer Commission noted that opposite party failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for repeatedly changing complainants' reserved seats.
The District Consumer Commission was dealing with a plea of an elderly couple. (AI-generated Image)
A District Consumer Commission of Chhattisgarh held a bus operator liable for deficiency in service after failing to provide confirmed seats despite accepting an online bus booking. It directed the operator to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony to an elderly couple aged about 61 and 57 years.
A bench of president Sujata Jaiswal and Member Dakeshwar Soni also awarded Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, and refunded other admissible amounts to the complainants.
“The opposite party failed to offer any satisfactory explanation or justification for repeatedly changing the complainants’ reserved seats. Such conduct amounted to negligence and deficiency in service, causing unnecessary hardship and inconvenience to the complainants,” the commission said on July 22.
The court noted that the opposite party itself admitted that, on December 21, 2025, the complainants had booked tickets for travel from Kanker to Raipur. However, during the journey, the bus staff repeatedly shifted the complainants from their reserved seats nos 3 and 4 to accommodate other passengers. As a result, the complainants had to endure inconvenience for nearly 30 kilometres.
The order ruled that in view of the findings, the complainants are entitled to compensation for the mental agony and physical inconvenience suffered by them due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.
Senior couple’s reserved seats changed
The complainants, an elderly couple aged about 61 and 57 years, booked two seats from a bus operator company travelling from Kanker to Raipur on December 21, 2025. They paid Rs 500 per seat and boarded the bus expecting comfortable reserved seats.
After the journey commenced, the bus staff asked them to vacate their allotted seats, stating that seat no 2 had been reserved for another passenger. They were then shifted to seat no 4. Subsequently, they were again directed to move, and an additional woman passenger and two children were made to occupy their seats.
Story continues below this ad
The complainants objected and informed the bus staff that they were senior citizens and had reserved specific seats. However, according to the complainant, the staff ignored their objections and continued changing their seats to accommodate other passengers. The complainants alleged that despite holding confirmed reservations, they were repeatedly inconvenienced and subjected to harassment throughout the journey.
Thereafter, the complainants sent a legal notice to the travel company seeking an explanation and compensation. Even after waiting five days, they received no satisfactory response. As a result, they approached the commission, contending that the travel operator’s conduct amounted to deficiency in service, as they had failed to provide the reserved seats for which the complainants had paid, causing them considerable mental agony, inconvenience and hardship during the journey.
Complaint was false: Bus operator
The bus operator company denied the allegations and submitted that the complainants were allotted the seats mentioned in their tickets and no deficiency in service had been committed.
It contended that the complaint was false and that the complainants had failed to produce any reliable evidence proving that they had been unlawfully removed from their reserved seats. The travel operator further argued that there was no negligence or unfair trade practice on its part and sought dismissal of the complaint.
Story continues below this ad
Seat shifting amounts to deficiency: Order
The commission found that it was undisputed that the complainants had booked two seats from the bus operator by paying Rs 500 per seat. The ticket and other documents produced by the complainants established the contractual relationship between the parties.
The commission noted that although the bus operator filed documentary evidence, it did not file any affidavit or examine any witness in support of its defence. Consequently, the complainants’ evidence remained unrebutted.
It held that once a passenger pays for a reserved seat, the travel operator is bound to provide that very seat during the journey. Arbitrarily shifting passengers to accommodate others amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Takeaway
This judgment reinforces that transport operators must honour confirmed seat reservations and cannot arbitrarily shift passengers for operational convenience. It affirms that such conduct amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and highlights that consumers are entitled to compensation for harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony caused by unfair travel practices.
Story continues below this ad
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chhattisgarh helpline: 1800-233-3663) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Stories you shouldn’t miss today
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog