ORDER<br /> <br /> By Jayasree Kallat, Member:<br /> <br /> The petition is filed by the complainant seeking for the cost of the gold chain lost during travel and compensation of Rs.5000/-. Complainant is alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party-1 was the owner of the bus and opposite party-2 was the conductor of the bus. The case of the complainant is that on 23-9-04 she was a passenger in the bus bearing Registeration No.KL/11/R-9363 from Thiruvangoor Andi company to West Hill, Chungam. On 23-9-04 while the complainant was traveling in the bus some one snatched the gold chain from the complainant’s neck. The complainant and co-passengers made hue and cry and requested the driver to stop the bus. The driver stopped it at Kattilpeedika. Complainant had requested the conductor and driver to take the bus to Elathoor Police station, but the conductor did not care about it and compelled the complainant to get down at Kattilpeedika. According to the complainant the<br /> non-compliance of the request to take the vehicle to nearest police station amounts to deficiency in service. She also alleges negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties-1 and 2 as she was made to get down at Kattilpeedika. Hence she is seeking cost of Rs.18118/- the value of the gold chain allegedly lost which was of 27.790 gms. and also a compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental agony.<br /> <br /> <br /> The opposite parties filed a joint version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either on law or facts of the case. It is a false and fabricated story. Complainant is not liable for any relief from opposite party. Opposite party admits that the complainant was a passenger in the bus bearing Registeration No. KL-11/R-9363 operated by the opposite party. But the opposite party denies the fact that the loss of her gold chain was due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party also takes the view that a bus passenger is not a consumer as defined under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> The question for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer? (2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? (3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?<br /> <br /> <br /> PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. RW1 and RW2 were examined on opposite parties’ side.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:-<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that she was a passenger in the bus bearing registeration No.KL-11/R-9363 from Thiruvangoor Andi company to Westhill, Chungam. On 23-1-04 according to the complainant some one snatched her gold chain from the complainant’s neck while she was traveling in the bus. The complainant and co-passenger made hue and cry and requested the driver to stop the bus. The driver of the bus stopped at Kattilpeedika. The complainant and co-passengers requested the conductor and driver to take the bus to Elathoor Police station which was on the route of the bus. But the conductor of the bus ignored it and compelled the complainant to get down. According to the complainant if the bus was taken to the police station and checked the passengers in he bus the culprit could have been caught. Complainant alleges deficiency on the part of the bus conductor and driver for not taking the bus to the police station as requested by her. Hence this petition. The complainant herself was examined as PW1 and another co-passenger in the same bus was examined as PW2. They have deposed in accordance with the complaint. Opposite parties filed a joint <br /> version for opposite parties-1 and 2. Opposite parties have taken the view that this complaint is not maintainable either on law or facts of the case. This complaint is filed on a false and fabricated note there is no bonafides in the complaint. According to opposite party complaint does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. But as the complainant has taken a ticket by giving consideration and availed the service of the opposite parties. According to us the complainant is a consumer. The point No.1 is proved.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:-<br /> <br /> Opposite parties admit that the complainant was a passenger in the bus run by the opposite parties on 23-9-04 from Thiruvangoor Andi company to West Hill, Chungam. But the opposite parties denied the fact that the loss of complainant’s gold chain was due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party has taken the stand that the bounden duty of the opposite parties are to take the passengers to their respective destination and they are not duty bound to safe guard the properties belonging to the passengers. Another allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is that the conductor of the bus did not take the bus to the police station at the request of the complainant. RW1 and RW2 were examined on the part of the opposite parties. RW2 is the conductor of the bus in which the complainant had traveled. He has stated in his deposition that the complainant has got down from the bus at Mujahit stop because she wanted to verify whether she had worn the chain that day. Elathoor police station was only 1 Kms away from where the complainant had got down from the bus and the bus was going towards Elathoor Police Station. It is not correct to say that opposite parties have compelled the complainant and another co-passenger to get down from the bus. According to the opposite parties they are running a bus through a definite route they take the passengers from different places and drop then at their destination. They have given ticket to this complainant and they have taken her to drop her at her destination. But as the complainant had thought that some one had snatched her chain from the bus she asked the driver to stop the bus, the driver had stopped the bus accordingly. Then as suggested by one of the co-passengers the complainant doubtful as to whether she had worn the gold chain on that particular day she had alighted from the bus in between to go back home to verify whether the chain was at home. So there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. From the depositions of PW1, PW2, RW2 we have arrived at the conclusion that the opposite parties were not negligent or there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.3:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and seeking relief. As we have found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.<br /> <br /> In the result the petition is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court this 6th day of June 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the complainant.<br /> <br /> A1. Photocopy of petition dt. 23-9-04 sent by the complainant to the Sub<br /> Inspector of Police, Koyilandy. <br /> A2. Photocopy of petition dt. 25-9-04 sent by the complainant to<br /> Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode.<br /> A3. Photocopy of ticket.<br /> A4. Photocopy of quotation dt. 21-8-04.<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the opposite party.<br /> Nil.<br /> Witness examined for the complainant.<br /> PW1. V. Santha (Complainant)<br /> PW2. P.P. Khadeeja, Vengalam.<br /> <br /> Witness examined for the opposite party.<br /> RW1. Muneer, Poolora House, Pantheerpadam, Kunnamangalam, Calicut.<br /> <br /> Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> // True Copy //<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/By order)<br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.<br />