FA No.950/2006 against CC.No.94/2005 District Consumer Forum,Anantapur.

Between:

Smt.M.Lakshmi Devi,

W/o.M.Venkateswarlu,

Pamidi Village & Mandal,

Anantapur District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Regional Manager,

   APSRTC, Railway Feeder Road,

   Anantapur.

2.The Depot Manager,

   APSRTC Rayadurg, Anantapur.

3.Sri D.Obula Reddy,

   APSRTC Driver, E.No.402946,

   Rayadurg Depot, Anantapur District.

4.Sri S.A.Allabaksh,

   APSRTC Driver,   E.No.576032,

   Rayadurg Depot

   Anantapur District.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant                  : Mr.M. Ramgopal Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondents           : Smt. K.Eswaramma (for R.1)

                                                             Sri K.Srinivasa Rao (for R.2)

                                                             R.3 Served. 

                                                             Appeal against R.4 dismissed.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that she was doing business in sarees at Pamidi.  On 16.03.2005 she purchased sarees worth Rs.20,000/- at Hyderabad and boarded bus belonging to respondents from Hyderabad to Pamidi after paying fare of Rs.149/-, evidenced under Ex.A.1 ticket.  The respondents 3 and 4, the drivers did not allow her to keep the sarees bundle inside the bus and therefore, she kept it on the top of the bus and tied with ropes.  She travelled in the same bus and by the time it reached Peapully, the drivers woke up her and informed that the sarees box was missing.  She was asked to give report to police, which she gave.  Despite representation, the respondents denied their liability, and therefore, she filed complaint for recovery of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of sarees together with interest and cots of Rs.5,000/-.

3.         The respondents resisted the case.  It alleged that it was the responsibility of the passenger to take care of the luggage loaded on the top or inside the bus, more so when it was accompanied by the passenger.  She was not entitled to any amount.

4.         The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.9 marked.  The respondents filed affidavit of one of its driver, R.3, who denied that the luggage was lost.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was no proof that she kept luggage on the top of the bus and therefore, dismissed the complaint. 

6.         Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that she could prove that she kept the luggage on the top of the bus and that it was lost and she gave a complaint to the police, and therefore, she was entitled to the compensation.

7.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had travelled from Hyderabad to Pamidi on paying fare of Rs.149/-, evidenced under Ex.A.1 ticket.  It is also not in dispute that she purchased sarees worth Rs.20,000/-, evidenced under Ex.A.9 bunch of bills. 

8.         The only fact that has to be considered is whether she kept the sarees bundle on the top of the bus and whether she lost the sarees and whether she is entitled to compensation?

9.         At the outset we may state that the complainant could not prove that she kept the sarees bundle on the top of the bus.  R.W.3, one of the drivers was subjected to cross examination.  He emphatically denied that the complainant had informed to him that she was keeping the sarees bundle on the top of the bus when she boarded at Hyderabad.  He asserted that he did not give any luggage ticket to the complainant. 

10.       The complainant could not prove that she kept the luggage on the top of the bus.  Admittedly, no fare was paid for the luggage which she kept on the top of the bus.  The learned counsel for the appellant contended that she is entitled to take 50 kgs of along with her.  Except this assertion no document is filed in order to prove that a passenger can take a luggage of 50 kgs along with him/her.  Even assuming that she could take such a luggage, there is no proof that she had taken the sarees bndle along with her on the said day.  She did not examine any of the co passengers to establish that she kept the luggage on the top of the bus on the said day. 

11.       R.W.1 asserts that the fact that the luggage was kept over the top of the bus was not informed to him.  A perusal of the record discloses that she gave a report to the police at Dhone Police Station, evidenced under Ex.A.2.  However, it does not bear acknowledgement of the police.  Copy of the F.I.R. was not filed in order to substantiate her case.  This is a case where the complainant could not prove any of these facts in order to award compensation.  We do not see any mis-appreication of fact by the District Forum in this regard.

12.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances no costs.   

PRESIDENT                      LADY MEMBER

                                                  Dt:19.01.2009.