Derangula Pedda Rao, S/o. Dasu, R/o. Burgampahad Village and Mandal, Khammam Dist. - Complainant(s)
Versus
D. Seetharasmulu, Proprietor of Clock Room, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Stand, Khammam & another - Opp.Party(s)
Mohammed Azeez, Advocate, Khammam.
20 Apr 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/79
Derangula Pedda Rao, S/o. Dasu, R/o. Burgampahad Village and Mandal, Khammam Dist.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
D. Seetharasmulu, Proprietor of Clock Room, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Stand, Khammam & another The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Khammam.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 20th day of April, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.79 of 2009 Between: Derangula Pedda Rao, /o Dasu, Age:26 years, Occu; Hotel Business, R/o Burampahad (V&M), Khammam District. Complainant And 1. D. Seetharasmulu, Proprietor of Cloak Room, at APSRTC Bus stand, Khammam 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Khammam Depot. Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri Md.Azeez, Advocate for complainant and of Sri B.Leela Prasad, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and of Sri G.Hareender Reddy, advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant along with his family members came to Khammam from Bhurgumpadu on 04-06-2009 to attend the marriage, he came along with luggage i.e. two bags consisting of new cloths, new four Pattu Sarees and some important documents. After attending the function, the complainant along with his family members came to APSRTC Busstand, Khammam and kept the luggage with opposite party No.1, who is running the Cloak Room under the opposite party No.2, in turn opposite party No.1 issued a receipt bearing No.3967, dt.04-06-2009 in favour of the complainant. After shopping, the complainant and his family members approached the opposite party No.1 to collect the luggage, but opposite party No.1 gave one bag instead of two bags. Then the complainant asked about the second bag, opposite party No.1 requested to provide one-day time for searching the second bag, as it was misplaced. After making rounds, the complainant finally approached the opposite party No.1 on 10-08-2009 to collect the second bag, but the opposite party No.1 bluntly refused to give second bag and did not give proper reply. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and narrated the same. No action was taken opposite party No.2. He submitted that in the bag which was not returned by the opposite party No.1 contained Rs.20,000/- worth of valuables. Hence the complaint. 2. Apart from the complaint, complainant filed affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. 3. On receipt of the notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed counter. In the counter, opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant deposited his luggage contained in two bags with him and issued a receipt bearing No.3967, dt.04-06-2009 in connection with deposit of luggage and denied the other averments made in the complaint. In fact, the entire luggage of the complainant was kept at one and the same place, there was no necessity at all to divide the luggage to keep at different places. Generally on deposit of luggage, bill will be issued to the person who deposits the luggage and receipt will be pasted to the luggage for identification purpose. In this case also on depositing of the luggage a duplicate bill pasted to the luggage and at the time of delivery of the luggage it will be taken back by the opposite party No.1. Because of rush of work and some disturbing atmosphere at the time of delivery of luggage the original receipt and the duplicate receipt pasted to the luggage were not taken back by this opposite party No.1. Taking undue advantage and retention of the above said receipts, the complainant has designed to have wrongful gain by harassing him, the complainant filed the present complaint. In fact the entire luggage of the complaint was returned to him. Opposite party No.1 further submitted that as per column number got printed on the reverse bill no valuable articles such as gold, cash should be kept in the suitcase deposited in the Cloak Room. The complainant has made false allegations in order to gain wrongful claim. Hence the opposite party No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. On the other hand opposite party No.2 also filed counter along with deed of license, which is marked as Ex.B1. In his counter, it is stated that Room No.25 in Bus stand of Khammam, was allotted to opposite party No.1 for running Cloak Room business and also issued a license. It is the responsibility of opposite party No.1 to safeguard the articles kept in the Cloak Room and return the same to the customers without any damage. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2, as the Cloak Room is given to opposite party No.1 under the deed of license. Hence he prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. Complainant filed his chief affidavit and also filed original receipt, which is marked as Ex.A1. The complainant as well as opposite party No.1 filed written arguments. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence, upon which the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainant has deposited his luggage containing of two bags with the opposite party No.1? 2. Whether the luggage of the complainant has not been returned to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 ? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? 4. To what relief? POINT NO.1 to 4: 7. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has deposited the luggage containing two bags with the opposite party No.1 in the Bus stand of Khammam on 04-06-2009. On this aspect of the case the complainant refers to Ex.A.1, receipt No.3967, dated 04-06-2009 issued by opposite party No.1. In the counter of opposite party No.1 it is clearly admitted that the complainant has deposited the luggage with his Cloak Room on the said date. When the complainant intended to take back his luggage from the Cloak Room of the opposite party No.1, the same was not handed over to him. The complainant is a consumer and the opposite party No.1 is a service provider. Opposite party No.1 has collected an amount of Rs.20/- from the complainant for the safe custody of luggage of the complainant. When the complainant demanded for the return of said luggage, out of two bags only one bag has been delivered and failed to deliver another bag. When the complainant questioned to deliver another bag, opposite party No.1 failed to deliver another bag by stating that because of rush of work and some disturbed atmosphere, he did not take back the original receipt from the custody of the customer/complainant. It appears that the opposite party No.1 has nourished cock and bull stories by stating that due to rush of work he could not take back the original receipt from the complainant and delivered the luggage and taking undue advantage of the retention of original receipt, the complainant with a sinister design harassing this opposite party No.1 for wrongful gain. This contention of opposite party No.1 cannot be believed. No prudent man will handover the luggage to a person without taking back the original receipt. If really it had happened as stated by the opposite party No.1, then it is the opposite party No.1s responsibility to handover the luggage on production of receipt. In the instant case, the complainant has been agitating for the delivery of only one bag, but not two bags. Had the complainant has a sinister design to gain wrongful claim from opposite party No.1 he will demand both two bags as contained in the receipt, Ex.A.1. Therefore, no malafide intention can be attributed to the complainant. It is a fare case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. A duty is caste upon the opposite party No.1 to deliver the deposited bags on production of original receipt. In the instant case, the original receipt is with the complainant. This itself proves that the second bag deposited by the complainant has not been delivered to the complainant for the reasons best known to opposite party No.1. This act on the part of opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. So far as the valuables said to have been contained in the undelivered bag is concerned, the complainant failed to produce any proof that he kept so much valuables in the undelivered bag. In the absence of the proof, it cannot be presumed that the complainant has kept silk sarees and other valuables in the said bag, which was not delivered by the opposite party No.1. Therefore, the alleged loss of valuables in the said undelivered bag is not tenable. However, for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, we direct to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation. Opposite party No.2 being the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Khammam is equally liable to pay the said amount to the complainant as the cause of action has taken place within the premises of RTC bus station complex, Khammam. 8. In the result, complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 20th day of April, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant: None Witnesses examined on behalf of opposite parties: None Exhibits marked on behalf of complainant: Ex.A.1 Receipt No.3967, dt.4-6-2009 Exhibits marked for opposite party: Ex.B.1 - Deed of Licence, dt.7-7-2006. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
