Date of filing: 20.01.2016
Date of Order: 10.08.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
PRESENT: Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 10th day of August, 2016
C.C.No.6 /2016
Between:-
Nakka Raja Praveen Kumar, S/o. Varaprasada Rao,
D.No.11-3-30/2, aged 29 years, PHD. Student,
Chintapalli Suranna Nagar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. … Complainant
And
1) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad.
2) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Regional Manager, Regional office,
A.P.S.R.T.C., Morampudi, Rajamahendravaram.
3) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Depot Manager, Kakinada RTC Depot,
Kakinada, E.G. Dt.
4) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram RTC
Bus Depot, Ramachandrapuram, E.G. Dt.
5) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Depot Manager, Vijayawada RTC Depot,
Vijayawada, E.G. Dt. … Opposite parties
This case coming on 25.07.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Appana Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:
O R D E R
[Per Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, Member]
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to return the mishandled luggage; pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony; pay Rs.2,000/- towards legal notice charges; pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation; pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint and pay Rs.54,000/- towards loss of luggage articles.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- It is submitted that on 26.10.2015, the complainant boarded the Bus of the opposite parties bearing No.AP 29 Z 2931 travelling rom Ramachandrapuram to Vijayawada under the ticket issued by the opposite party bearing No.46704689 with Seat No.17, Garuda Plus UID Number 1681 for Rs.406/- and he got the following Luggage with him: One marine bag which contains the following articles: (a) Laptop (Sony latest version worth of Rs.32,000/-, (b) Cash of Rs.10,000/-, (c) one Samsung mobile Rs.10,000/- and (d) the laptop contains scientific data and research methodology and reports of the complainant in which he is doing Phd. The complainant submits that the said marine bag contains the above articles was handed over to the assistant of the bus who took the luggage and gave one token bearing No.66 and after reaching Vijayawada, he would return the luggage against the token, but when reached Vijayawada, the assistant of the bus of the opposite party did not return the luggage kept above with him and simply refused to give the luggage to the complainant and upon due persuasion, the staff of the bus, gave letter dt.26.10.2015 to the effect that the bag found missing and further admitted it is their mistake and after thorough enquiry if found the same would be given else liable for the actions. This show the deficient services on the part of the officials concerned of the bus and further the negligent behavior of the luggage of the complainant. The complainant submits that on 27.10.2015, the complainant gave a written complaint to the 3rd opposite party with copy to the 2nd opposite party mentioning all the things and for redressal for which there is no response and hence, on 2.11.2015 again another letter to the 3rd opposite party with copies to all the concerned officials mentioned in that letter and there is no response. Hence, again on 7.11.2015, a complaint to the Ramachandrapuram Police Station about the missing of luggage and there is also no response. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 3rd opposite party filed its written version and the same was adopted by the opposite parties 1, 2, 4 & 5 and denied the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. It is true that on 26.10.2015, the complainant boarded the bus bearing registration No.AP 29 Z 2931 for travelling from Ramachandrapuram to Vijayawada. On 26.10.2015, the said bus was plying between Kakinada and Bangalore. The 3rd opposite party further submits that MV Prasad, E 600952, A. Puthraiah, E 600959 are the drivers of the bus and T. Elisha was the attender of the bus. This opposite party submits that when the complainant boarded the bus at Ramachandrapuram, he kept one Trolley bag, in the luggage cabin of the bus. The attender gave a token to the complainant. This opposite party submits that as a general practice, whenever the passenger keeps his/her luggage in the luggage cab, the crew of the bus informs/cautions the passengers that they should not keep any valuable articles/cash in the luggage cabin. Similarly, in this case of the complainant also when he boarded the bus at Ramachandrapuram and expressed his intention to keep Trolley bag in the luggage cabin, the crew of the bus informed/cautioned him that he should not keep any valuables/cash in the bag. This opposite party submits that when the complainant boarded the bus at Ramachandrapuram and kept the trolley bag in the luggage cabin, he did not disclose/declare that the trolley bag contains cash, mobile phone and laptop. The 3rd opposite party submits that the complainant, without observing precautions and without heeding to the caution given by the bus crew, kept his Trolley bag in the luggage cabin. It is true that on 27.10.2015, the complainant gave a report the 3rd opposite party and marked a copy of the same to the 2nd opposite party. It is also true that on 2.11.2015, the complainant gave a letter to the 3rd opposite party. This opposite party submits that immediately after receiving the report from the complainant, the 3rd opposite party, under whose administrative control the bus is, appointed the Assistant Manager, (Traffic) for conducting departmental enquiry. The Assistant Manager, Kakinada depot recorded the statements of the crew of the bus and also the statement of the complainant. The 3rd opposite party submits that before the departmental enquiry officer, the complainant voluntarily gave his statement and signed the same. This opposite party submits that inspite of being advised by the bus crew, the complainant did not lodge a police complaint at Vijayawada. This opposite party submits that the loss/non delivery of the Trolley bag of the complainant is a result of theft of the same by unknown culprits. Since a theft was committed, the complainant ought to have given a police report and the police would have investigated into the matter and apprehended the culprit. The complainant after a long lapse of time sent a complaint to the police by registered post. This opposite party further submits that the complainant has not taken proper and effective steps for retrieving the lost mobile by giving a police complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs and he is also not entitled to claim any interest. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A12 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the 3rd opposite party and Exs.B1 has been marked for the opposite parties.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Points raised for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?
3. To what relief?
7. POINT Nos.1 & 2: As per the available record, the complainant herein travelled from Ramachandrapuram to Vijayawada on 26.10.2015 vide Service No.2637 Kakinada to Bangalore in Garuda bus with UID No.1681 on payment of Rs.405/- towards ticket charges as per Ex.A3 e-ticket and way bill. Ex.A1 is the Aadhar card copy of the complainant. The complainant handed over one maroon colour trolley bag to the staff of the said Garuda bus and obtained a token for the bag under Ex.A4 at Ramachandrapuram. When the complainant reached Vijayawada found that the said trolley bag handed over to the staff of the opposite parties to keep it in the luggage cabin was missing and the complainant obtained an undertaking letter vide Ex.A5 dated 26.10.2015 from the two drivers and one attendant of the said bus that the mistake was on their part and after enquiry, they recover it or the value of the same will be paid by the APSRTC authorities. Thereafter, the complainant addressed a letter to the Depot Manager, Kakinada i.e. the 3rd opposite party on 27.10.2015 alleging that the bag lost during journey contained a Laptop worth of Rs.50,000/-, Samsung mobile worth of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- in cash and some eatables vide Ex.A6. We further observed that the complainant again addressed another letter dt.2.11.2015 to the Depot Manager, Kakinada marked the copies of the same to several officials and un-officials under Ex.A7 and the same were delivered as per the letter under Ex.A9 of Department of Posts with delivery information under Exs.A10, A11 & A12 letters of 23.11.2015. We further observed that the complainant made a complaint on 7.11.2015 under Ex.A8 to the DSP, Ramachandrapuram and others that he found missing the trolley bag at 8.00 PM on 26.10.2015 at Vijayawada bus station and alleged that though he complained the same to the outpost police station, they did not give any receipt. Further, they told us informed the police at Ramachandrapuram, but the Ramachandrapuram police did not file any F.I.R. though he lost goods of Rs.70,000/-, cash of Rs.10,000/- and Samsung mobile worth of Rs.8,500/- besides certificates and the bank passbooks.
The opposite party APSRTC authorities filed their version and admitted that the complainant travelled in their Garuda bus from Ramachandrapuram to Vijayawada on 26.10.2015 and handed over one maroon colour trolley bag to the staff of the opposite party authorities to keep that bag in luggage cabin and issued a token for the same. But, the opposite party authorities contended that the complainant failed to inform the staff of the bus that the trolley bag contained valuables and further, the complainant not supposed to keep the valuable items in the trolley bag and has to keep them in his custody and control. The complainant obtained even did not mention about the valuables at the time of obtaining letter from the staff of the bus under Ex.A5 on 26.10.2015.
We observed that the complainant alleged that the bag contained valuables only on 27.10.2015 in his letter addressed to the 3rd opposite party and during the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Manager (Traffic) under Ex.B1 dated 2.11.2015, the complainant stated that the trolley bag contained Laptop worth of Rs.50,000/-, Samsung mobile worth of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in cash and the complainant further stated that he did not inform the same either to the drivers or to the luggage attendant. When the complainant complained the same to the police outpost, the police entered the complaint and after obtaining a letter from the staff, the police sent that bus, but the Krishnalanka police refused to take the complaint when the drivers said that the luggage was not missed at Vijayawada and the same might be lost between Ramachandrapuram and Vijayawada. When the complainant approached the police at Ramachandrapuram, the driver of the said bus stated that the luggage was lost at Vijayawada complex and so, the Ramachandrapuram police refused to take the complaint.
It is further observed that the complainant stated as he has to travel in Uttar Pradesh and there is every danger of thefts in that State, he kept the valuables in the trolley bag. The Laptop was purchased during the year 2013, which costs about Rs.50,000/- including extra hard disc, cable etc. and the Samsung mobile worth of Rs.8,500/- was purchased during December, 2014 and the bills for the above items were not preserved and never expected this situation. The complainant further stated that he informed the BSNL office about loss of Samsung phone and there is no provision to trace out the Laptop. We further observed that the complainant stated that the bus during journey to Vijayawada, observed that the bus was stopped at Mandapeta and Ravulapalem and after that he did not observe the further stops as he is watching the television as per Ex.B1 enquiry report signed by the complainant himself. The complainant during enquiry stated that the bills issued at the time of purchase of Laptop and Samsung phone were not in his possession as he could not keep the bills, but produced a bill issued on 1.4.2013 with some other name for Rs.32,000/- vide Ex.A2.
It is observed that the complainant stated that he sent the complaint to the DSP, Ramachandrapuram about loss of his trolley bag through registered post, but what is the action taken by the police with regard to his complaint is not known. Earlier, complaints of the complainant were not registered by the police at Krishnalanka P.S. of Vijayawada and S.H.O., Ramachandrapuram, but in his statement, the outpost police noted the complaint and after obtaining letter from the staff of the Garuda bus, they permitted the bus to leave the bus station, but that general diary entry was not produced. Further, we observed that the complainant stated different versions of the worth of the valuables kept in the trolley bag that was lost.
We observed that the complainant is a well educated man and he is aware of the thefts during the journeys and so, more cautious than other travelers and should keep the valuables in his possession or control more particularly the Laptop and mobile phone besides cash. It is further observed that the complainant has to travel from Vijayawada to Allahabad (U.P.) by train and he can keep the valuables in the trolley bag after boarding the train at Vijayawada, if he really afraid of thefts during the journey more particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further observed that the complainant himself stated that he never informed to the staff that the trolley bag contained valuables and he mentioned the same for the first time on 27.10.2015 in the letter addressed to the 3rd opposite party.
With the discussion held supra and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties APSRTC authorities failed to deliver the trolley bag at Vijayawada though it was lodged in the luggage cabin by their staff at Vijayawada. However, there is no reliable evidence placed by the complainant that the said trolley bag in dispute contained valuables along with cash of Rs.10,000/-. We agree with the contention of the complainant that suffering of mental agony due to missing of trolley bag during the journey to Vijayawada and so, the opposite parties are liable to pay for the mental agony suffered by the complainant besides the legal costs as the complainant was forced to approach this Forum. The complainant is not entitled for other reliefs asked for in his complaint.
8. POINT No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony and pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the complainant. Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 10th day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT(FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR COMPLAINANT: None. FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.B1 Aadhar card of the complainant.
Ex.B2 Laptop bill bearing No.12 dt.1.4.2013 for Rs.32,000/- in favour of the complainant.
Ex.B3 Bus ticket bearing No.46704689 for Rs.406/- issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.B4 Original token No.66 given by the opposite party bus driver/attendant to the
complainant against the luggage received by him.
Ex.B5 Letter dt.26.10.2015 by driver of the buss of the opposite party admitting loss of
luggage.
Ex.B6 Complaint letter dt.27.10.2015 given by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.B7 Another complaint letter dt.2.11.2015 given by the complainant to the opposite
parties with copies to higher officials.
Ex.B8 Copy of the complaint given to the police station at Ramachandrapuram.
Ex.B9 Letter dt.23.11.2015 from Post master of post office, about the enquiry particulars of
the letter sent to police.
Ex.B10 Letter dt.23.11.2015 from the post master to the complainant.
Ex.B11 Letter dt.24.11.2015 from the post master to the complainant.
Ex.B12 Letter dt.24.11.2015 from the post master to the complainant.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:-
Ex.B1 Statement dated 28.10.2015 given by the complainant during the course of
departmental enquiry by the Assistant Manager (Traffic) of Kakinada Depot.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
