Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/130/2012

SP.Chockalingam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 12.06.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.130/2012

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 07^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

SP. Chockalingam,

S/o. Mr. S. Perumal,

F4, Morning Rose,

RC – Victoria Garden,

No.1, Air Force Station Road,

East Tambaram,

Chennai – 600 059.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                

 

          ..Versus..

 

The Managing Director,

Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited,

“Pallavan House”,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                   ..  Opposite party.

          

 

Counsel for complainant            :  Party in person

Counsel for the opposite party  :  M/s. M. Chidambaram & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for irreparable loss, hardship and mental agony with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 01.09.2011, he proceeded to Chennai by travelling in the opposite party transport Corporation bus route No.21G, Registration No. TN 01 N 7642.  During the travel by the complainant, he took a seat on the left side of the front row.   While getting down from the bus, the nail protruded from the seat damaged the trouser of the complainant caused great mental agony and loss of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the trouser.   The complainant submits that after due intimation, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party explaining the different type of loss both pecuniary and non pecuniary.   The complainant states that all the hardship, mental agony and loss faced by him are due to the fact that the opposite party Corporation has not maintained the bus properly and has not carried out repairs when it is required to be done.  The opposite party corporation was negligent and careless in their duty and allowed the nail to be projected in such a manner causing damage to the passengers’ attires and injury to their body.  The complainant issued legal notice dated:05.09.2011 to the opposite party and its Public Relations officer.  The opposite party and Public Relations Officer received the notice, but not complied with the demand of the complainant and made any reply to the notice.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.     The opposite party states that on 01.09.2011, route No.21G proceeded from Tambaram to Guindy. On the way, one passenger kept his luggages in the seat caused damages.  Immediately, the said damage was informed to the opposite party’s higher officials.   The opposite party states that while the complainant was taking the seat, the conductor of the bus informed that “kindly take another seat since the seat you are to sit is damaged”.   Without giving any heed or information the complainant wantonly and deliberately seated in the damaged seat caused the damage to his trouser, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The deliberate attitude of the complainant caused such damage.   There are several seats kept vacant when the complainant was boarded the bus till getting down from the bus.   Eventhen, the complainant has chosen to sit in the damaged seat.  The opposite party states that immediately after receipt of the notice the opposite party’s officials contacted the complainant to settle the issue by paying the cost of the trouser.  The complainant without agreeing for that after nine months filed this case proves the veracity of the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for negligence , deficiency in service, mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint , written version, proof affidavits and document.   The complainant pleaded and contended that on 01.09.2011, he proceeded to Chennai by travelling in the opposite party transport Corporation bus route No.21G, Registration No. TN 01 N 7642.  During the travel by the complainant, he took a seat on the left side of the front row.   While getting down from the bus, the nail protruded from the seat damaged the trouser of the complainant caused great mental agony and loss of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the trouser.  Ex.A1 is the Bus Ticket.   Ex.A2 is the photograph.  The opposite party also in his written version para. No.6 admitted the incident and regretted for the damage and requested the complainant for meeting out the cost of the trouser proves the alleged incident due to deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the complainant is that after due intimation, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party explaining the different type of loss both pecuniary and non pecuniary.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due to such deficiency in service of the opposite party, the complainant was not able to attend the court resulting loss to clients also.  But no record.  The complainant has produced the torned trouser which is marked as M.O.1 in this Forum and paper cutting for similar deficiencies of various corporations.  

6.     The complainant stated that the driver and conductor is not a necessary party to the proceedings for which he also cited a decision reported in:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAJ AT AHMEDABAD

Between

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Manek Centre Jammagar

-Versus-

Cargo Motors Ltd & 6 Ors.

Held that

“Whether, driver was necessary party to proceedings – held, there was no controversy between parties about driver of truck owned by Cargo Motors Ltd. Owner was joined as party who was basically vicariously liable for act committed by its agent driver of truck and owner had to be indemnified by insurance company in accordance with terms and conditions of policy of insurance – In motor accident primary liability was that of driver and once driver was found negligent, owner would be vicariously liable for negligent, owner would be vicariously liable for negligent act of driver – However, liability of driver and owner, being joint tortfeasonrs was joint and several and any person who sustained any injury in road traffic accident was entitled to sue either driver of vehicle or its owner – Further, person against whom award was passed and who was made liable to pay amount as damages was entitled to recover same from other joint tortfeasors but that would not disentitle claimant injured from suing any one of joint tortfeasors – Thus, driver was not necessary party to proceedings and absence of driver would not be bar for petition claiming compensation”.

 The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation  for deficiency in service.  But the complainant has not taken substantial steps to prove such loss.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that on 01.09.2011, route No.21G proceeded from Tambaram to Guindy. On the way, one passenger kept his luggages in the seat caused damages.  Immediately the said damage was informed to the opposite party’s higher officials.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that while the complainant was taking the seat, the conductor of the bus informed that “kindly take another seat since the seat you are to sit is damaged”.   Without giving any heed or information the complainant wantonly and deliberately seated in the damaged seat caused the damage to his trouser there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The deliberate attitude of the complainant caused such damage.   There are several seats kept vacant when the complainant was boarded the bus till getting down from the bus.   Eventhough the opposite party has not produced any document to prove such contention, the complainant has not disputed or denied the above said contention because there are several vacancies.  Eventhen, the complainant has chosen to sit in the damaged seat.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that immediately after receipt of the notice as per Ex.A2 the opposite party’s officials contacted the complainant to settle the issue by paying the cost of the trouser.  The complainant without agreeing for that nine months later filed this case proves the veracity of the complainant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards  damages as compensation with cost of Rs.5,000/-.   M.O.1 be destroyed after the appeal time.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards damages as compensation and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 07^th day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of Bus ticket
		Copy of photographs
		Copy of legal notice by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
		Copy of acknowledgement cards
		Copy of Material object original enclosed which is marked as M.O.1

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT