DOF. 16 / 1 /07 DOO.15 /7 /10 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 15th day of July 2010 C.C.No.12/2007 Fr.Mathew, Vikar, St.George Church, Kacherikadavu, P.O.Kacherikadavu. . Complainant (Rep. by Adv.K.Gopakumar) 1. Shivan, Kailas, Porakkalam, P.O.Kuthuparamba. (Rep. by Adv.Saju Balakirhsnan) 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., KPK.Railto Near Kottachery Pump, Thana, Kannur 12. Opposite Parties (Rep. by Adv.K.Reghunathan) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.2987/- the cost of name board with interest along with Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost. The case of the complainant is that he is the Vikar of St.George Church, Kacherikadavu and placed an order for a plastic laminated name board with “letter graph digital Designs, Calicut, for displaying at the main entrance of the St.George Church, Kacherikadavu. As per the information received from the Manager of the above stated firm, that the board was ready for delivery, the complainant went to Calicut on 9.11.06 to take the delivery of the board and brought the board to Private bus stand and booked the name board as a luggage in the opposite party’s bus with the permission of employees and it was taken to the top of the bus and tightly tied to the carriers on the side and another luggage was also placed on the board and after this the complainant went to the nearest book stall and in meantime the bus was left the stand. The conductor in opposite party’s bus charged Rs.15/- for the luggage from Kozhikoode to Iritty and issued a ticket for payment of charge when the bus reached at Iritty at about 7.45 pm the luggage was not found on the top of the bus and the missing was brought to the notice of the employees of opposite party’s bus. But they behaved with indifferent manner and not even enquire about the lost luggage. The complainant lodged a complaint to the police station and enquired at Mattannur and Thalassery bus stand. But all are in vain. Later the complainant contacted the opposite party and requested either to find out the luggage or pay compensation to the missing luggage. But opposite party avoided the complainant. On 14.11.06, the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party requesting to pay Rs.2987/- but the opposite party has not even issued a reply. As a vicar, the complainant is managing the affairs of the church and is accountable to all the members of the church. It is the duty of the employees to make sure safety of the luggage. Being the owner of the bus the opposite party is vicariously liable. ‘The complainant had suffered so much of physical; and mental hardship. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite party appeared and fled his version. The opposite party filed version contending that he is not a consumer. The opposite party dnies the averment that employees allowed the complainant to put the luggage on the top of the bus. No luggage was kept on the top of the bus as alleged in the complaint with the permission of the employees. The complainant gets into the bus only at Vadakara bus stand with one carton to Iritty. The conductor of the opposite party demanded Rs.15/- as a fare for luggage which was kept inside the bus. But the complaint was not ready to pay Rs.15/- as a fare for luggage and quarreled between employees of opposite party and at last complainant paid Rs.15/- as fare for luggage and issued ticket to the passenger and luggage. The complaint was filed only for the reason that there is a quarrel between the opposite party’s employees and the complainant. When the notice was received from the complainant the opposite party contacted and talked the matter and he told the opposite party that only due to the behaviour of the employee of the bus he constrained to send such notice and his intention is to talk the matter with the operator of the bus. So he did not send reply. Since there is no negligence attributed to the employees, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and if the Hon’ble Forum found that the complainant is entitled to any compensation the same can be realized from the insurer of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As per the contention of opposite party the Oriental Insurance company was imp leaded as supplemental 2nd opposite party. In response to the notice from the Forum, 2nd opposite party also appeared and filed their version. The 2nd opposite party filed version contending that they came to know about the claim only on receipt of the summons from the Forum. The vehicle passenger carrying bus KL.13M 7747 has been insured with 2nd opposite party form 15.2.06 to 14.2.07. But the liability is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy. The company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or held in trust by or in the custody of the insured or members of the insured’s household or being conveyed by the insured vehicle and hence the luggage is not covered by the policy. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he had carried the name board in the bus. Accepting luggage fare will not give guarantee that the insured would take care of the luggage and it is the sole responsibility of the passenger to keep watch on his luggage. It is clear from the complainant’s version that after keeping luggage in the bus rather boarding the bus and keeping a\s eye on the luggage, the complainant left for searching some books and in the meantime the bus left the bus stand etc. amounts to the carelessness of the complainant himself. The relief sought is exorbitant and unreasonable. There is no deficiency on the part of 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1. Issue Nos.1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted with the bus owned by 1st opposite party from Calicut with a name board and the conductor of the bus charged Rs.15/- for luggage from Kozhikdoe to Iritty. The luggage was a name board for placing in front of the church in which the complainant is a Vikar and the same was tied upon the top of the bus and when the bus reached at Iritty the luggage was not seen on the top of the bus and the opposite party’s employees are liable for the loss and hence the opposite parties has to indemnify the complainant. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents Ext.A1 to A7. Such as two tickets notice issued by the complainant, lawyer notice, postal receipt, acknowledgement card, bill and quotations. The opposite party also produced Ext. B1 policy with conditions. The opposite party denies that the complainant had boarded from Calicut and tied a name board on the top of the bus. According to the opposite party No.1 he had boarded form Vadakara along with a carton Rs.15/- was charged as fare for the carton. So in order to answer the issue No.1, the following points to be decided i.e. whether the complainant purchased any board from Calicut and travel the bus from Kozhikode to Iritty with that name board? Whether the complainant had suffered the loss of board and if so, whether it is due to the negligence of the opposite party’s employees. So the first point to be decided is that whether the complainant had purchased any board and entrusted it in the bus of opposite party from Calciut to Iritty. The complainant’s case is that he had boarded to the bus bearing NO.KL.13G 7747 from Badakara, even though he had placed the name board on the top of the bus with the knowledge of employees. Since the bus was left when he had returned after his visit to book stall. He had produced Ext.A1 (a) and (b) tickets of the same bus. He deposed before the Forum that Fsâ ticket hS-I-c-bn \n¶mWv apdn-¨-Xv.. Even though he deposed that “ hS-Ic hsc h¶Xnsâ Sn¡äv Fsâ-ssI-h-i-apv“ he has not produced the same before the Forum. Moreover there is no other evidence before us to show that he had traveled from Calicut. The complainant has produced Exts.A6 bill and A7 quotation to prove that he had made the board from letter graph digital design Calciut. The Ext.A6 was issued in the name of one Roy and not in the name of complainant. More over it lacks any date. So the Ext.A6 document cannot be connected with the complainant in any manner. Even though the complainant deposed before the Forum that F\n-¡v I-z-t«-j³X-¶n-«n-Ã. Fsâ-ssI-bn _nÃv am{Xta X¶n-«p-f-fp. He had produced Ext.A7 quotation. In the quotation also name of one Roy is seen and the name of complainant is not mentioned any where. So this document also not connected with the complainant in any way. So it is seen that the complainant failed to prove the ownership and the incident as stated in the complaint. The next question whether the complainant had suffered the loss of the board due to deficiency of service of opposite party The complainant contended that he and the porter take the board on the top of the bus and tied on the top of the bus. But opposite party denied by saying that they never permitted anybody to put luggage on the top of the bus. There is no evidence before us to prove the ownership and the complainant had traveled from Kozhikode to Iritty etc. The complaint was not able to say how the board was lost. He has no specific allegation against the employee nor have a case that bus was stopped any place other than authorized stop and removed the board. So the complainant miserably failed to prove that he had a name board and the same was tied with top of the bus from Calicut and it was lost due to negligence of the employees of 1st opposite party. So the complainant failed to substantiate his case and hence we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service to opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and issues 1 to 3 are found against the complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 tickets A2.Copy of the letter dt.14.11.06sent to OP A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A4 Postal receipt A5.AD A6.Cash bill issued from letter graph A7. Quotation issued by Letter graph Exhibits for the opposite parties B 1. Copy of Certificate cum policy schedule issued from Oriental Insurance co. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties: DW1.Sreedharan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
