C.C.No.76/2015

1.

The APSRTC, Represented by its Managing Director,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2.

The Depot Manager, MGBS, Hyderabad.                                                

3.

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Udayagiri.                                    ..…Opposite parties

II.(a)

It is the case of the complainant that she is a mason worker, who intended to return to Pamuru alongwith her sister-in-law Devandla Rajyam and reserved their seats in the bus of opposite parties 1 to 3 bearing ticket No.36853848 under Service No.5202 from Nirmal to Pamuru, after collecting ticket and reservation charges,  opposite parties 1 to  3 had allotted  seat Nos.23 and 24 to the complainant her sister-in-law.  The complainant and her sister-in-law  had boarded the bus bearing No.AP 26 Z 0144 at Nirmal in the above said seats which were allotted to them.  The bus was started at Nirmal at about 4 p.m. on 26-12-2014.  Whileso, bus was proceeding to  Pamuru from Nirmal, at about 9.30 p.m.  the bus was reached at M.G.B.S. Bus station, Hyderabad.  After  completion the dinner of all the passengers, the above said bus was again proceeded to Pamuru from M.G.B.S.Bus station at about 9.50 p.m.  So, at about 11.00 p.m.  the above said bus was stopped at Swathi Delux Hotel, Ibrahimpatnam by saying that  to take dinner by the drivers of the bus and for the reasons best known to them.  The complainant and her sister-in-law were alongwith some other passengers crossed the road since drivers of the bus told that the bus will be stopped for about 15 minutes  and advised  all the passengers to take their  natural calls by crossing the road.  Then, after completing their natural calls while re-crossing the road again, the driver of the car bearing No.AP 10 AZ 5787 drove  the same very speedily and negligently, dashed the complainant and her sister-in-law and due  to that accident, the complainant’s sister-in-law died on spot and the  complainant also got severe bleeding injuries and last her  both legs  and she is in bed.

(b)

It is also submitted by the complainant in  para-2 at page No.2 of her complaint that it is the legal and bounden duty to reach the passengers in their destinations  in the safe manner but the drivers of the above said bus stopped the bus at Ibrahimpatnam under the guise of dinner illegally and negligently in hard timings i.e., at about 11 p.m.  The reason for stopping the bus in such hard time  in high way  which leads to  accidental of death of the said passengers is not exclusable  and it is clear that case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.  It is unauthorized stoppage which clearly goes to show that their deficiency in service and  sheer negligence.  So,  the complainant had approached the Hon’ble Consumer Forum for her  redressal grievance.

(c)

There are causes of action for filing this Consumer Case are narrated   in para-2 of 4^th page of the complaint by the complainants.  Hence the complaint.

(a)

The Regional Manager of APSRTC, Nellore (Opposite Parties)  was resisted the complaint of the complainant by denying her allegations, filed written version / counter on 26-11-2015 and a memo of adoption of counter of  1^st opposite party by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The complaint is not just and sustainable  at law.

V

The complainant had filed  her affidavit evidence on 05-01-2016 (P.W.1)  and also submitted her documents in support of the case and once again reiterating the facts of the case and marked them as Exs.A1 to A8; Whereas the  opposite parties had also filed their affidavit evidence (R.W.1)  on 05-01-2016 and submitted their documents and marked them as Exs.B1 to B3.  The complainant had  filed her written and additional written arguments of the case but the opposite parties did not filed their written arguments of the case.

VI

Basing on the  pleadings of the case and documentary evidence on both sides and that for consideration of relevant points are that namely:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the  complainant?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for, if it is so, to what extent?

3.  To what relief?

VII

POINTS Nos.1 and 2:-  In view of  these points which are inter-related  and depends on with each other, they have been taken-up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has  of the case.  The complainant  has once again  reiterated the facts of the case in her affidavit  as well as written  arguments.  It is nothing but repletion of them, is avoided here.

           Oral submissions are by the learned counsel for complainant:

VIII.      Sri G. Srinivasulu has vehemently argued that the material facts of the case are not in dispute between  the parties.  He has also  further argued that the documentary evidence (Exs.A1 to A8) is  clearly  established  and proved the complainant case.  Since all the passengers of the bus took their  meals at MGBs, Hyderabad at about 9.00 p.m. to 9.45 p.m.   As per  141 card, the opposite parties had stopped their bus in Ibrahimpatnam for the purpose of dinner at 11 p.m. and it is not correct to state  that fact and such card is not filed before the Hon’ble  Consumer Forum since it is  created and  concocted document and it is after-thought by the opposite parties.  Ex.A5 is the important document which clearly explains the stages of  arrival and departure timings including dinner break-time and meals timings incorporated in it.

                The said learned counsel for complainant has further contended that at about 11 p.m., the alleged bus was stopped at Swathi Delux Hotel at Ibrahimpatnam to take the dinner for the drivers and they had advised all the passengers to take their natures of calls by crossing  the road and   after completing  the natures of calls and so while re-crossing the road, the driver of the car which bearing No.AP10AZ5187 drove the same very speedily and negligently dashed the complainant and her sister-in-law  which resulted the death of Devandla Rajyam on the spot and also complainant got severe bleeding injuries with fractures of her both legs.  The above said letter (Ex.A5) which was issued by the Public  Information Officer and  Deputy Superintendent, Udayagiri Bus Depot, Udayagiri under R.T.I.Act, proved that there is no stopping   at Ibrahimpatnam but at about 11 p.m., the opposite parties  are unauthorisedly stopped the said bus for dinner of the drivers.  He has further urged that during  his  oral arguments for the complainant that there is no reply from legal notice dated 17-08-2015 (Ex.A6) from the opposite parties.  It is clearly admitted fact that  the opposite parties are further pleaded that interest at            6percent p.a. is to be granted to the complainant on compensation.   Finally, he has argued that there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  It is therefore  prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint as prayed for.

Oral arguments  of the  learned counsel for opposite parties:

XI.    On the  other hand Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned  counsel for the opposite parties has also vehemently argued that the written version / counter and an affidavit filed by Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore on behalf of opposite parties, may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments of  the case.  He has also further argued that it is not correct to state  that the alleged bus was  stopped at about 9 p.m. at MGBS Bus Station at Hyderabad for dinner. The said bus was stopped only for alighting  and boarding of passengers at MGBS, bus-station at Hyderabad.  He has further contended that after taking dinner in the Swathi Delux hotel at about 11 p.m.  at Ibrahimpatnam, some passengers were crossed the road to answer calls of nature  near the bus side.  Whileso, 2 women were without observing the vehicle car movement, suddenly crossed the road towards  bus side, meanwhile, at that time one car which bearing No.AP-10-AZ-5787 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent  manner dashed the  complainant and  her sister-in-law, due to that the complainant had received injuries and  her sister-in-law died in the hospital.

           The  said learned counsel for complainant has further urged  that the  said incident took place due to the negligence on the part of the complainant for herself without observing the said car.  At that time, APSRTC bus was an idle position.  The said bus driver gave a report to S.H.O.  Ibrahimpatnam P.S.  and the same was registered as crime No.493/2014 under Section – 304-A and 338 I.P.C. against the driver of the said car.  There is no deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant  is not  entitled to claim total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  She has at liberty to file a case against the owner of the said car and its insurance company before Motors Accidents Claim Tribunal and against APSRTC.  The  documents Exs.B1 to B3 are to proved the case of the opposite parties.  It is therefore prayed that  the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against  the opposite parties with costs.

Forum’s Findings   and Observations

X.       Heard, the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits. Oral  arguments of the case are advanced by the said learned counsels of their parties.  We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments  advanced before us.

           (b)       In nutshell, the  entire facts and circumstances of the case brings out clearly that as per Ex.A5 document, meals session for the passengers of the bus at MGBS, Hyderabad 0.45 minutes.  The said APSRTC bus had reached Ibrahimpatnam and stopped it infront of Swathi Delux Hotel at 11 p.m. for dinner and in fact there was no stopping for the bus for dinner once there was no stopping for the bus for dinner once again.  It is so as per Ex.A5 document.  There is no necessity to stop the said bus at that time (11 p.m.) for dinner and it is clearly an unauthorized stopping  there. The said alleged accident was occurred because of negligent and unauthorized stoppage there by the  opposite parties.  The accident, perhaps, may not be happened if the said bus not stopped there.  The root cause for said accident to the passengers (two women), it is clearly due to deficiency in service and negligence of opposite parties.  Moreover, the opposite parties are trying to  blame those said passengers.  It is not correct view.  Their defence has no legs to stand before Law.

             (c)        The term transport, specifically included in the definition of services in Section-2(1)(0) of the Act, has received a fairly wide connotation by Consumer Courts to include various kinds of means of transport.  The inclusion of transport service in the definition of ‘Service’ under the Act has  a great socio-economic objective to achieve.  The fact is that even after compulsory motor insurance and nationalization  of insurance business, the people of the poor classes, suffering losses  due to deficiency in transport services, were getting deprived of speedy and efficient redressal of grievances.  The case is that concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Nirmala Devi, AIR 1979 SC 1966.

P.W.1  -

05-01-2016

Smt Battula Padma alias Padmavathi, W/o.Ramanaiah, S.P.S.R.Nellore District ( Deposition Affidavit filed)

R.W.1  -

05-01-2016

Smt G. Maheswara, S/o.Srinivasulu Naidu, Working as a Regional Manger in APSRTC., Nellore District

(Chief Affidavit filed)

Ex.A1  -

27-12-2014

Photostat copies  of  First Information Report No.493/2014  from  Shake Basha to the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Cyberabad.

Ex.A2  -

28-12-2014

Photostat copy of  Medico Legal Patient Record in  M.L.C.Reg.No.47634  in favour of  Battula Padma issued by Nizam’s Institute  of Medical Sciences,                         Hyderabad-500 082.

Ex.A3  -

Two photos.

Ex.A4  -

26-12-2014

Photostat copy of  Ticket No.36853848 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

Ex.A5  -

16-06-2015

Photostat copy of  letter from Public Information Officer & Deputy Superintendent (P), Udayagiri to the                              Md. Raheemkhan, Nellore-524001.

Ex.A6  -

17-08-2015

Legal notice  from  complainant’s advocate to the  opposite parties alongwith  three registered post receipts.

Ex.A7  -

12-08-2015

One postal acknowledgement  received from opposite party No.3 sent by the complainant’s advocate.

Ex.A8  -

One returned registered post cover  received from  opposite party No.2.

Ex.B1  -

27-12-2014

Letter from Depo Drivers to the  opposite party No.3.

Ex.B2  -

26-12-2014

Letter  to the opposite party No.3.

Ex.B3  -

Attested copy of the MTD-141  card of Nirmal Super Luxury in   Service No.5201 and Service No.DN 5202 of the vehicle.

1.

Sri G. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Nellore.

2.

Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, 16-3-812, Ramamurthy Nagar,                Nellore-524 003.