KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 675/2002

JUDGMENT DATED: 30.6.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

1. Parambath Rajesh,                                    : APPELLANTS

    S/o Narayanan Nair,

    Kodiyeri Amsom,

    Moozhikkara.

2.  K.Vijayalakshmi,

    W/o Venugopal,

     Ariyapurath House,

     Thiruvargod, Thalassery.

(By Adv.M.Raghavan Pillai)

       Vs.

1. P.Balan,   (Died)                                                : RESPONDENTS

    S/o late Govinadan,

    Abhilash, Katheri-Vattappaaram,

    P.O.Ayithara Mambram – 670 643.

2. Mrs. Sreemathy, W/o Late P.Balan,(additional respondent)

           -do-do-

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties  1 and 2 in OP.380/99 in the file of CDRF, Kannur.  The appellants including the 2^nd opposite party is under orders to reimburse Rs.5000/- to the complainant and pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.250/-as cost.

          2.  The 1^st appellant/1^st opposite party is the conductor and the 2^nd opposite party is the cleaner and the 3^rd opposite party is the proprietor of the bus KL 13A 20243 plying in between Tellichery and Kottiyoor.  According to the complainant he boarded the bus from Kuthuparamba for getting down at Kaithery - Vattapara. It is his case that the bus was over loaded with passengers and the cleaner of the bus permitted the passengers to board the bus again and again. Altogether there were more than 100 passengers.  The complainant was carrying in the pocket of his underwear 100 fifty rupee  notes wrapped in a towel.  When the bus reached near the bus stop at Maveli store, the complainant  realized that somebody has pick pocketed the amount.  The complainant shouted to stop the bus and requested  the crew of the bus to take the same to the police station for examining the passengers.  But the bus was not stopped and it stopped only at Thokkilangadi.  Again the complainant requested the conductor to take the bus to the police station.  But he did not agree. The towel with which the notes were wrapped was found in the bus.  The bus was stopped at police picket post but by the time certain passengers had alighted from the bus.  The officials of the  police picket post asked the conductor to  lodge a complaint at the police station.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties  have committed deficiency in service as the bus was not taken to the police station in which case if a search was conducted it would have been possible to recover the amount.

          3. The opposite parties filed version disputing allegation that the bus was overcrowded.  According to them the complainant informed them about the incident only when the bus reached at Thokkilangadi wherein there was a police picket post.  It is contended that the police at the outpost had searched the passengers.  It is denied that the complainant wanted the bus be taken to the police station.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, DW1/1^st opposite party ; Exts.P1 to P3 and MOs 1 and 2 the underwear and the towel.

          5. The Forum has relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. PW2 is the independent witness who had traveled in the same bus.  He has supported the version of PW1 the complainant.  The complainant has produced the ticket issued by the opposite parties.  There is no dispute as to the fact that the complainant had traveled in the above bus.  It is also not disputed that he had raised the complaint of pickpocketing committed and the loss of money.  The Forum has noted that the opposite parties were bound to provide proper service to the complainant who had traveled in the bus.  It is particularly noted that the opposite parties ought to have assisted the complainant in apprehending  the thief and that on the other hand they had rather helped the thief to escape from the bus by permitting passengers to get down.  It is pointed out that the crew of the stage carrier buses are to be appointed on the basis of  qualifications stipulated in the statute and they are  expected to take care of passengers.  Evidently  in the  instant case there is nothing to disbelieve the version of PWs 1 and 2 that the complainant had sought for taking the bus to the police station  straight for searching the lost money and apprehending the  pickpocketer. The crew of the bus declined to do so.  Hence there is deficiency in service .  We find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum.  Hence the order of the Forum is sustained and appeal is dismissed.

          Office will forwarded the copy of the order and LCR to the Forum urgently.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

ps