| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 123 of 26-04-2018. Decided on : 22-02-2022. Parabhjot Kaur D/o Jaswant Singh, aged about 24 years, R/o Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Dabwali Transport Company (DTC) having its registered office at Badal Road, near Giani Zail Singh Engineer College, Bathinda, through its authorised person/competent person/proprietor (Owner of bus bearing registration No. PB-03AJ-8515). Gurmit Singh S/o Rachhpal Singh, R/o Village Badhian, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib (Driver of bus bearing registration No. PB-03AJ-8515) Divisional Manger, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., #2090-B, The Mall, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. N S Narula , Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. N S Romana, Advocate for OPs 1 & 2. Sh S M Goyal, Advocate for OP No. 3. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Parabhjot Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Dabwali Transport Company (DTC) and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is young girl of the age of 24 years and doing M.B.A from Punjabi University, Patiala. It is alleged that on dated 04.06.2016, complainant alongwith her cousin sister named as Navneet Kaur daughter of Satwant Singh Dod, Retired D.S.P, resident of Barnala, were coming from Patiala towards Bathinda on Bus No. PB-03AJ-8515 owned by opposite party No.1 and driven by opposite party No. 2. The complainant and her cousin sister Navneet Kaur were sitting on the seat of two persons nearer to the engine of the bus in question. When the bus reached near bus stand Sangrur on high speed, all of a sudden, bus jumped on hump/speed breaker, due to which the hot water came out of the water radiator and it fell on the chest, stomach, arms and legs of the complainant and said parts of her body were suffered damages/burnt. Due to burn injuries, complainant became unconscious. Bus driver and conductor took the complainant to Bansal Hospital, situated at NH-64, G.T Road, Rampura Phul where she remained admitted from 04.06.2016 to 13.06.2016. During said period Dr. Jatinder Bansal, of Bansal Hospital, provided treatment to the complainant and she was discharged on 13.06.2016 and the said treatment is still continuing. It is also alleged that matter was also reported to the police at Police Station ZP Ajit Nagar, Sangrur. The police recorded statement of the complainant on 14-6-2016 at Bansal hospital Rampura and lodged report No. 24 dated 16.06.2016, but police did not register any case against the opposite parties as the opposite parties are influential persons. The police wrongly mentioned in the Rapat that the occurrence is natural one and there is no fault on the part of any person. The complainant alleged that the said accident has taken place due to the carelessness and negligence of the opposite parties and they are liable for the same, because the bus was being driven in careless and negligent manner. Due to said accident, the face, stomach, legs, arms and chest of the complainant suffered burn injuries. The complainant alleged that she suffered mentally, physically and financially for which she claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 She spent Rs.50,000/- on her treatment. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensation on account of treatment expenses and for mental and physical harassment. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and filed written reply. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their joint written reply, raised legal objections that the complainant is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. That the bus bearing registration number PB-03AJ-8515 is comprehensively insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., vide insurance policy number 2004003115P115047623 for the period from 11-3-2016 to 10-3-2017, as such liability, if any, to pay compensation lies with the Insurance company. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action. That it is admitted fact of complainant that complainant is near relative of retired DSP Satpal Singh Dod and with active support of said police officer, the complainant has brought into existence DDR No. 24 dated 16.6.2016 against the bus in question with ulterior motives and now has filed this complaint. That this Commoission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complaint deserves dismissal being frivolous one. On merits, it has been pleaded that on 4-6-2016 the complainant and her cousin sister Navneet Kaur had boarded the bus in question is totally wrong and outcome of afterthought. The allegations levelled in the complaint are false and baseless as no such occurrence had taken place involving the bus in question as the said bus was a new one and there was no question of opening of cap of radiator of moving bus running on regular route. The complainant has not brought on file the ticket of the bus in question if she had undertaken journey in the bus. Further after incident, if any, complainant got treatment from private medical institute in order to obtain favourable report. In the slip of doctor there is no mention of person who brought the complainant to the hospital. There is no mention of exact time of alleged occurrence, having taken place either in DDR, in complaint or in medical record. Due to influence of relative police officer (retd), the complainant has succeeded in bringing into existence DDR No. 24 dated 16-6-2016 and medical record. The alleged occurrence had allegedly taken place on 4-6-2016 but the DDR has been got recorded on 16-6-2016 after 12 days and this inordinate and unexplained delay has been misused to concoct a false story to falsely involve the bus in question with ulterior motives. There is every possibility that the complainant suffered the alleged injury during domestic work or otherwise but has falsely involved the bus in question with ulterior motive. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 prayed for dimissal of complaint. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written reply raising legal objectgions that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. That a bare perusal of entire complaint reveals that there is not even single word therein, as to on which ground, it has been filed against opposite party No. 3 or as to why it has been impleaded as party or what is role and cause of action against opposite party No. 3. Hence the present complaint qua opposite party No. 3, being an abuse of process of law and devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed with costs. That complainant has got no locus standi and that there is no privity of contract between complainant & opposite party No. 3. That the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as per 'Act'. hence complaint does not lie. That the bus No. PB-03-AJ-8515 was insured for the period from 11.03.2016 to 10.03.2017 vide policy No. 2004003115P115047623, regarding the accident of vehicle and any injury to the occupant of bus in an accident, but no accident took place of the bus in question, so question of complainant suffering any injury does not arise at all and as such accordingly question of liability of opposite party No. 3 also does not arise. If there was some defect in engine or its operates, then for the same owner or driver of the bus at the most can be held liable, but no such liability can be fastened, in this regard upon opposite party No. 3 and that this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It has been pleaded that as per pleadings of complainant, due to speed breaker, the hot water came out of radiator and fell on complainant meaning thereby that main reason of alleged incident is speed breaker, which have not, been properly designed and prepared, because the speed breakers are made by MC and same being of more height than permissible, as per rules, due to which the bus allegedly took high jump and water from radiator came out. Hence the Municipal Corporation is necessary party in this case. Further legal objections are that the complainant, is estopped from filing the present complaint due to his acts, conducts, admissions, omissions and acquiescence. That complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which can be proved only by leading detailed oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be done under the 'Act'. That radiator in bus is installed in front portion i.e. extreme front and there is no chance of water coming inside or hitting or affecting the passengers of front seats, as there is more than sufficient gap between seats and the radiator. The engine portion remains duly covered with the top box and no one can or is allowed to sit on or near the engine portion. The complainant has not mentioned even her seat number on which she was sitting nor has produced any ticket to show that she had travelled in the bus in question. So the entire story so pleaded by complainant appears to be false and result of concoction of mind of complainant. That the complainant has not produced any MLR, or other medical record of treatment. That if for argument sake it is believed that hot water came out/spilled from radiator, then that means the bus was not kept in the proper condition and was unfit for running on road. So it is clear cut case of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of parties No. 1 & 2. That no criminal case/FIR has been got registered by complainant. A bare perusal of alleged DDR finds mentioned that as per complainant the alleged incident had taken place in a natural course and there was no fault on the part of any person nor she wanted to take any action against the driver or owner of the bus. That if any injury or loss is caused to any person in any Motor vehicle accident, then for the same, he has got specific remedy under M.V. Act and that the complainant has not produced any record/document to show that she was travelling in alleged bus. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 denied all the averments of complainant and reiterated his stand as taken in legal objections, detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 3 also prayed for dimissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 21-11-2018 (Ex. C-1), photcopy of DDR No. 24 dated 16-6-2016 (Ex. C-2), certificate regarding payment (Ex. C-3), Retail invoices (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-21), OPD receipt (Ex. C-23) and payment receipts (Ex. C-23 to Ex. C-29). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 1-2-2019 of Jaspreet Singh Sandhu, Attorney, Director of Dabwali Transplort Company (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of resolution (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of R.C. (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of Insurance policy (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of route permit (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of D.L (Ex. OP-1/6) and photocopy of special power of attorney (Ex. OP-1/7). The opposite party No. 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 18-7-2018 of Baldev Singh (Ex. OP-3/1) and photocopy of policy (Ex. OP-3/2). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that she was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. No. PB-03AJ-8515 owned by opposite party No.1 and being driven by opposite party No. 2. The complainant alleged that complainant and her cousin sister Navneet Kaur were sitting on the seat of two persons near to the engine of the bus. When bus reached near bus stand Sangrur, bus jumped on hump/speed breaker, due to which hot water came out of the water radiator and it fell on the chest, stomach, arms and legs of the complainant due to which she suffered burn injuries and remained admitted in Bansal Hospital, Rampura Phul from 04-06-2016 to 13-06-2016. The submission of learned counsel for the opposite parties is that before going on merits, the point regarding complainant being consumer be decided first as the complainant failed to produce any evidence to prove that she is consumer of the opposite parties. A perusal of file reveals that the allegation of the complainant is that she was travelling in the said bus and suffered burn injuries due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties but the complainant has not even produced on file any ticket or any other document issued by the opposite parties to prove that she availed/hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration. 'Consumer' is defined under section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 :- “Consumer” means any person who - (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.” Explanation – For the purpose of this clause :- (a) the expression “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” (b) the expression “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi level marketing. A perusal of file reveals that complainant has not placed on file even a single document to prove that she hired/availed the services of the opposite parties. In evidence, the complainant has tendered medical record which do not depict that complainant suffered injury, if any, due to lapse on the part of the opposite parties. Of course, complainant has placed on file copy of Rapt No. 24 dated 16-6-2016 (Ex. C-2) which was got recorded by complainant only against which no investigation was carried out by police. Thus, this document also does not prove that complainant availed any services of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the complainant failed to prove that she hired/availed the services of the opposite parties for consideration, hence she does not come under the definition of 'consumer'. Otherwise on merits also, this complaint deserves dismissal as the complainant has failed to prove her case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant alleged that she travelled in the bus in question on 4-6-2016 whereas she got recorded Rapat No. 24 (Ex. C-2) on 16-6-2016 i.e. after 12 days. As per Certificate issued by doctor (Ex. C-3), patient/complainant was discharged from hospital on 13-6-2016 and as per Rapat dated 16-6-2016 (Ex. C-2), statement of complainant was recorded by I.O. on 14-6-2016 in said hospital wherein complainant has stated that her treatment is going on. Moreover, in this rapat complainant has got recorded that this incidence has taken place due to sudden and natural way and no body is at fault, therefore, she does not want to take any action against driver etc., In addition to this, complainant has placed on file certificate issued by Bansal Hospital (Ex. C-3) and some bills of medicines and receipts. A perusal of Certificate (Ex. C-3) reveals that of course Dr. Jatinder Bansal has certified that Prabhjot Kaur, complainant was admitted in his hospital on 4-6-2016 but instead of confirming burn injuries the doctor has mentioned “alleged history of burns.” As per complainant she remained admitted in the said hospital from 4-6-2016 to 13-6-2016, but no treatment file/Indoor Admission File/Bed Head ticket has been placed on file by complainant to prove her treatment/ admission. Bills of medicines and receipts do not prove any treatment taken by complainant that too due to any fault on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not placed on file statement/affidavit of any co-passenger. Even complainant has not placed on file any statement/affidavit of her cousin sister Navneet Kaur who was allegedly travelling with her in the bus in question. In such circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is hereby dismissed as complainant does not come under the definition of 'consumer' under the 'Act' as well as complainant failed to prove her case on merits also by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 22-2-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
