STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Manish Rana daughter of Sh. R.S.Rana, C-3/31, DLF Valley Panchkula, Haryana.  

   …..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. Department of State Transport, Haryana, 2nd Floor, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2nd Address:  Haryana Roadways, Plot No.182, Purv Marg, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002

                             …..Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

2.  Inter State Bus Terminus (ISBT), Maharana Pratap Interstate Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Near Kashmere Gate Metro Station Address Delhi 110006, through its Authorized Signatory.

                           …..Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. R.S. Rana, Father of the appellant/complainant.

                Sh. Om Parkash, Clerk/Authorized Representative of the respondents.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.8.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost, filed by the complainant (now appellant). The order of the District Forum is given hereunder:-

“The complainant has not placed on record any of the documentary evidence supporting her case. Undoubtly the ticket purchased by the complainant for the Volvo Bus of OPs is of higher price comparing to general & deluxe buses, but the complainant failed to brought on record any rule or regulations whereby the OPs were duty bound to provide the specific facility of CCTV footage as alleged by the complainant.   In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there are not sufficient grounds and evidence on record to admit the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed in limine.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action with better particulars.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant boarded the respondent/Opposite Party No.1 Bus bearing No.HR-55-S-4605 on 27.12.2018 to travel from Delhi Airport to Chandigarh on making payment of Rs.780/- towards its ticket vide Annexure C-2 colly.  It was stated that when the said bus reached ISBT, Delhi around 16:00 hours on 27.12.2018, the complainant got down for 2 minutes from the bus for attending nature call and informed to the conductor and bus driver that she will be coming within two minutes.  It was further stated that when the complainant came back and boarded the bus of Opposite Party No.1, she was shocked to find that her belongings i.e. laptop bag worth Rs.2000/-, One Laptop worth Rs.43,789/-, Charger worth Rs.5000/- (mobile plus laptop), One earphone worth Rs.2800/-, Connecting lead worth Rs.500/- i.e. totalling to Rs.43,789/-, was found missing from the bus.  It was further stated that when she reported this matter to the notice of bus conductor and driver, they showed their inability.  Further, it was stated that the complainant requested them to provide her with CCTV Footage of the incident, but she was informed that the same is not working for the last three months. It was further stated that the complainant reported the matter to the Police at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi (Annexure C-3 colly). It was further stated that the complainant also brought this matter to the notice of Opposite Parties, but nothing was done. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service.  When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. After hearing the father of the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, at the preliminary stage. 
4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 9.8.2019.

5. We have heard the father of the Appellant and authorized representative of the Respondents, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
6.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
7.         The complainant has come in appeal stating that the CCTV footage which was the crucial piece of evidence of the case could not be made available, as it was not working or functioning for a long time, which has been confirmed by the conductor and driver of the said bus, in which the appellant was travelling and further endorsed by the Yard Master of Gurgaon office of respondent No.1 i.e. Department of State Transport, Haryana.
8.        The appellant had lost her luggage alongwith personal laptop/charger/earphone etc. whose value was around Rs.44,000/-. In fact, the appellant had booked the ticket from Delhi Airport to Chandigarh by Volvo bus of respondent No.1 keeping in mind that journey will be safe and since in the said volvo buses CCTV cameras are also installed and as such her belongings will be safe during the journey. She had also paid a hefty amount of Rs.780/- towards the ticket. In fact, it appears from the record that the said theft had taken place in the ISBT terminal of Delhi where the bus reached around
   3.00 P.M. and when appellant got down for two minutes for attending nature’s call. The appellant had also stated that she informed the conductor of the bus before getting down from the bus that she will be back within two minutes, but unfortunately her belongings including laptop and another accessories were found missing. The said CCTV Camera installed in the ISBT Bus Stand was dysfunctional for the last three months and there was utter negligence on part of the conductor and driver for not reporting the non-functioning of CCTV Camera to their higher authorities. Further, though the incident had been reported to the Police Station at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, no visible action has been ever initiated either by the police or by the Department of State Transport Haryana. Accordingly, we are of the view that the said appeal deserves to succeed partly and a compensation of Rs.40,000/- be paid to her towards the cost of lost articles by the respondent No.1 within period of two months from the date of this order alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-, since the respondent No.1 was deficient in rendering service and since no proper care was taken by it in maintaining CCTV Camera in the Bus Stand and also in the bus from where the theft had taken place.
9.        In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, warrants the interference of this Commission.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is partly accepted. The order of the District Forum is set aside.
11. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

25.11.2019                                           

                                                                     Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKAR ATTRI)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                               Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                                  Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

Gp

                                STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No.225 of 2019

(Manish Rana Vs. Department of State Transport, Haryana)

Argued by:

Sh. R.S. Rana, Father of the appellant/complainant.

Sh. Om Parkash, Clerk/Authorized Representative of the respondents.

Dated    the   25^th   day of  November, 2019

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the complaint filed by the Complainant has been partly accepted, with cost and the order passed by the District Forum has been set aside.

Sd/-                              Sd/-                                 Sd/-

Gp