This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Md. Azeez Pasha, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. A. Ravindra, Advocate for opposite party No.1; and of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties No. 2 & 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant the complainant is doing petty cloth business for her livelihood and on 10-01-2015 the complainant along with her sister-in-law after purchasing sarees, dress material and other cloths at Guntur to the tune of Rs.43,625/-and came to Vijayawada, boarded Bhadrachalam Depot RTC bus at 7:00 PM with their luggage to the Paloncha. The bus driver advised the complainant to keep the said luggage in the bus dickey and taken Rs.200/- from the complainant towards luggage charges. On 11-01-2015 at about 01:00 AM the bus reached Paloncha Bus Stand and the complainant asked the driver of the bus to hand over the luggage. The complainant and the bus driver found that there was no luggage in the bus dickey. The complainant demanded the driver i.e. opposite party No.1 for her said luggage. The complainant informed the same to the authorities of APSRTC Paloncha and also approached Bhadrachalam Bus Depot Manager, but her luggage was not traced out. On 28-01-2015 the opposite party No.2 issued a letter vide letter No.01/114(1)/15/BCM to the complainant stating that an enquiry is conducted in to the case and disciplinary action taken against the driver. The complainant made many rounds to the office of the opposite party No.2 to take back her luggage but she could not get her luggage. Being the complainant is consumer and paid travelling charges hence the opposite parties have responsibility to hand over the luggage. As they have failed to do so, there is deficiency of service on them. The complainant prayed this Forum to pay the costs i.e. Rs.43,625/- for her said luggage and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, physical and mental agony caused.
3. In support of her case the complainant filed the documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-6.
Ex.A-1:- | The Bus Ticket i.e. the original journey ticket. (The print of the ticket is faded out) |
Ex.A-2:- | The Original Bill for Rs.37,120/-, dt.10-01-2015. |
Ex.A-3:- | The Original Bill for Rs.6,505/-, dt.10-01-2015. |
Ex.A-4:- | The Original Credit Bill for Rs.19,000/- dt. 10-01-2015. |
Ex.A-5:- | The Original Credit Bill for Rs.18,120/-, dt. 10-01-2015. |
Ex.A-6:- | Letter No.01/114(i)/15-BCM, dt. 28-01-2015. |
4. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters. In their counter the opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant boarded the bus No. AP-28-Z-1268 at Vijayawada and complainant purchased two tickets to Paloncha on paying of Rs.500/- note for two tickets @ Rs.163+1 for each, amounting to Rs.328/-, the opposite party No.1 stated that neither the complainant nor her companion boarded with some luggage. If at all they placed some luggage they would have taken ticket for luggage. Only after alighting the bus at Paloncha Bus Station the complainant informed that she had loaded the luggage in the dickey. The complainant if really loaded / carried the luggage might have lodged a case before Police regarding the loss of her luggage for recovering the goods lost. The office authorities of the opposite party No.1 enquired and found that the complainant did not carry any luggage on the date of Journey and no deficiency of service on their part.
The opposite party No.2 & 3 contended in their counter that the complainant got travelled by bus No.AP-28-Z-1268 on 10-01-2015 from Vijayawada to Paloncha but she did not purchased any luggage ticket for her luggage. After alighting at Paloncha Bus station only, she claimed about her lost luggage and she has not filed any police complaint to recover the lost luggage. On complaint by the complainant the Assistant Manager, Traffic, Bhadrachalam conducted enquiry regarding the incident and found that the complainant did not inform the driver about carrying the luggage or she has not taken any luggage ticket. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of the averments of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have filed the document and marked as Exhibit B-1.
Ex.B-1:- Photocopy of ticket remittance report for Bhadrachalam to Vijayawada and Vijayawada to Bhadrachalam up & down dated 11-01-2015 @ 02:24:12 hours
6. The complainant filed written arguments. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 advanced their arguments orally.
7. In view of above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,
1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed in the complaint under the deficiency of service?
2) If she is entitled for. How much of amount?
Point No. 1:-
As stated by the complainant in the complaint, she was travelling from Vijayawada to Paloncha along with her sister-in-law in the bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1268 on 10-01-2015 and alighted the bus at Paloncha bus station and could not find her luggage. From the documents and material available on record we observed that the complainant boarded the bus with luggage as it is in huge size then only, she was preferred to keep her said luggage in the dickey of the Bus otherwise she would have taken the said luggage in to the Bus as a cabin luggage. The complainant stated in her complaint that she paid Rs.200/- towards luggage ticket to the driver i.e. opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 himself with the help of the coolie kept the said luggage in the dickey. The complainant when she paid Rs.200/- for luggage ticket and she has to collect the ticket also, but she has not filed any luggage ticket for support of her averment. The T.R.R. report filed by the opposite parties No.2&3 reveals that no luggage ticket was issued and no passengers has purchased the luggage ticket in the said service. Therefore the complainant version is said to be false and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The point No.1 goes against to the complainant and not entitled as prayed in the complaint.
Point No.2:-
The point No.2 does not arise as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and no question of amount is to be paid to the complainant. Hence the point No.2 is also against to the complainant.
8. In the result complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 28th day of July, 2017.
Member Member President
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
For Complainant For Opposite party
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED:-
For Complainant For Opposite party
Ex.A1:- | The Bus Ticket i.e. the original journey ticket. (The print of the ticket is faded out) | Ex.B1:- | Photocopy of ticket remittance report for Bhadrachalam to Vijayawada and Vijayawada to Bhadrachalam up & down dated 11-01-2015 @ 02:24:12 hours. |
Ex.A2:- | The Original Bill for Rs.37,120/-, dt.10-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A3:- | The Original Bill for Rs.6,505/-, dt.10-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A4:- | The Original Credit Bill for Rs.19,000/- dt. 10-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A5:- | The Original Credit Bill for Rs.18,120/-, dt. 10-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A6:- | Letter No.01/114(i)/15-BCM, dt. 28-01-2015. | | |
| | | | | |
Member Member President
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam.
