Andhra Pradesh
Nellore
CC/77/2015
Devendla Venkateswarlu, S/o Obulesu - Complainant(s)
Versus
The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)
G.Srinivasulu,
10 Mar 2016
ORDER
Date of Filing :02-09-2015
Date of Disposal:10-03-2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE
Thursday, this the 10th day of March, 2015
PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) and Member
Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.
C.C.No.77/2015
1. | Devandla Venkateswarlu, S/o.Obulesu, Aged about 45 years,
|
2. | Battula Dhanalakshmi, W/o.B. Anjaneyulu, Aged about 27 years,
|
3. | Devandla Ashok Kumar S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 23 years,
|
4. | Devandla Swapna, D/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 19 years,
|
| All are residing at Kakullavaripalli Village, Damancherla Post, Varikuntapadu Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. ..… Complainant |
Vs.
1. | The APSRTC, Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
|
2. | The Depot Manager, MGBS, (Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station), Hyderabad.
|
3. | The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Udayagiri. ..…Opposite parties |
.
This complaint coming on 29-02-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasulu, advocate for the complainant and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri M. SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
This Consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for deficiency in service and negligence, which resulted severe mental agony and also to grant costs of the complaint and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Factual matrix leading to filing of this Consumer Case is as stated as hereunder:
I1.(a) | It is the case of the complainant’s wife, is a mason worker, who intended to return to Pamuru alongwith her sister-in-law Battula Padma and reserved their seats in the bus of opposite parties 1 to 3 bearing ticket No.36453848 under Service No.5202 from Nirmal to Pamuru, after collecting ticket and reservation charges, opposite parties 1 to 3 had allotted seat Nos.23 & 24 to the complainant’s wife and her sister-in-law. The complainant’s wife 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 of 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’s wife 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’s wife and her sister-in-law and due to that accident, the complainant’s wife died on spot and the complainant’s wife sister-in-law also got severe bleeding injuries and last her both legs and she is in bed.
|
(b) | It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-2 at page No.2 of his 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 excusable 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 his redressal grievance.
|
(c) | There are causes of action for filing this Consumer Case are narrated in para-2 of 4th page of the complaint by the complainants. Hence the complaint. |
III. DEFENCE
(a) | The Regional Manager of APSRTC, Nellore (Opposite Parties) was resisted the complaint of the complainant by denying his allegations, filed written version / counter on 26-11-2015 and a memo of adoption of counter of 1st opposite party by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The complaint is not just and sustainable at law. |
IV. Facts-in-brief of the case: (a) According to the 1st opposite party, the above said bus which bearing No.AP26-Z-0144 was started at Nirmal at about 4 p.m. on 26-12-2014 and same was proceeding to Pamuru. It is incorrect to state that the above said bus was stopped at about 9 p.m. at MGBS Bus Station at Hyderabad for dinner, it was stopped only for alighting and boarding of passengers at MGBS Bus Station, Hyderabad. According to para-5 of written version / counter of 1st opposite party that the above said bus was reached at about 11 p.m. at Ibrahimpatnam and same was stopped in front of Swathi Delux Hotel, situated opposite to bus station for the purpose of dinner for passengers. It was also mentioned in its counter that 141card which was mentioned to stop the said bus at Ibrahimpatnam for the purpose of dinner.
(b) As per para-6 at page No.2 of its written version / counter of the 1st opposite party, it was further stated that after taking dinner in the above said hotel, some passengers crossed the road to answer calls of nature and some of the passengers answered the calls of nature near the above said bus side. Again, it was stated that while two women without observing the vehicular movements suddenly crossed the road towards bus side and at that juncture a car which bearing No.AP 10 AZ 5787 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the complainant’s wife and her sister-in-law. The complainant’s wife sister-in-law had received injuries and complainant’s wife died in the hospital. The said accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the complainant for herself without observing the car. At the time of accident, the 1st opposite party bus which was stationed by the side of the road and it was idle position. There is no negligence or rashness on the part of the said bus driver for causing accident and no accident was caused by the said bus. After the said accident, the driver of the said bus gave a report to the S.H.O., Ibrahimpatnam and it was registered as Crime No.493/2014 under Section-304 A and 338 I.P.C. against the driver of the car which bearing No.AP 10 AZ 5787 .
(c) It is also further submitted by the 1st opposite party in paras 7 to 9 at page Nos.2 and 3 of its written version / counter that the 1st opposite party does not admit that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. There is negligence on the part of the complainant’s wife sister-in-law for sustaining injuries without observing the car and crossed the road. It also does not admit that complainant is entitled to claim total compensation and death caused to complainant’s wife for Rs.20,00,000/- as mentioned in his complaint. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same by way of documentary evidence. It is also further submitted that he is not entitled to any compensation and he has at liberty to file a case against the car owner and its insurance company before
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and not against the APSRTC Corporation.
(d) It is also further submitted by the 1st opposite party in paras 10 and 11 at page No.3 of its written version / counter that the complainant’s wife had travelled as passenger in the above said bus by purchasing ticket but she was not a Consumer. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the driver of the above said bus. The said accident occurred due to negligence of the complainant. Again it was submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 10-02-2004 in Civil Appeal No.6467/1998 which was passed to reduce the interest rate payable to the complainant from 18% to 6% p.a. on the compensation amount. The rate of interest in F.D.Rs. in Commercial Banks have been in a study declined during the past five years. Now, the maximum rate of interest payable on F.D.Rs. in the above said banks 5.5% p.a. only. The complainant is entitled to get grant of compensation 6% p.a. on compensation amount from the date of the complaint in case he is entitled for compensation and not more than that. An amount of compensation claimed by him is highly excessive, exhorbitant and imaginary. In these above said circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may please to dismiss the complaint with costs against 1st opposite party.
V | The complainant had filed his affidavit evidence on 05-01-2016 (P.W.1) and also submitted documents in support of his case and once again reiterating the facts of the case and marked them as Exs.A1 to A11 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 written arguments on 21-01-2016 and also filed additional written arguments on 15-02-2016 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: |
|
complainant? |
|
|
|
|
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 once again reiterated the facts of the case in her affidavit as well as written arguments. It is nothing but repetition 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 A11) is clearly established facts of the case and proved them. 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 Ex.A7 obtained under R.T.I.Act, 2005. The contents of the document (Ex.A7) had proved that all the passengers took their meal at M.G.B.S. / Hyderabad Bus station only. At about 11 p.m. the above said bus was stopped at Swathi Delux Hotel at Ibrahimpatnam to take the dinner of the drivers and advised the passengers to take their natures call by crossing the road and after completing the natures of call while re-crossing the road, the driver of the car bearing No.AP 10 AZ 5787 drove the same very speedily and negligently dashed the 1st complainant’s wife and his sister which resulted the 1st complainant’s wife died on the sport and his sister got severe injuries is also an admitted fact. There is no dispute at all. Further more, the said learned counsel for the complainants has contended that Ex.A1 F.I.R. copy; Ex.A2 P.M. Report, Ex.A3 is the Inquest Report and Ex.A4 Death Certificate of Devandla Rajyam, who is the wife of the 1st complainant and mother of 2 to 4 complainants which are admitted. Ex.A5 Family Member certificate, Ex.A6 ticket issued by opposite parties. Ex.A7 letter issued by Public Information Officer and Deputy Superintendent (P), Udayagiri Bus Depot, Udayagiri under R.T.I.Act informing the stages of the bus No.AP 26 Z 01 44, which is also an admitted fact and the said letter is a crucial document to decide the whole issue of this case. Ex.A8 is the legal notice dated 17-08-2015 got issued to the opposite parties. The 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.A7 is the important document which clearly explains the stages of arrival and departure timings including dinner break-time and meals timings incorporated in it. 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.A8) from the opposite parties. After filing of the written arguments of the complainants, the opposite parties had after thought by creating Ex.B1 to B3 documents are untenable in law. In Ex.B3 document also, it is clearly proved that there is no stage at Ibrahimpatnam but the opposite parties are fabricated those documents mentioning meals at Ibrahimpatnam, which is untenable under law. Nobody can take dinner during mid-night at 11 p.m. Ex.B3 141 card is a created one. 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: | |
IX. 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’s wife and her sister-in-law, due to that the complainant’s sister-in-law had received injuries and his wife died in the hospital.
| |
X. The said learned counsel for opposite parties has further urged that the said incident took place due to the negligence on the part of the complainant’s wife 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.20,00,000/-. He 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 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 | |
XI. 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.A7 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 in front of Swathi Delux Hotel at 11 p.m. for dinner and in fact there was no stopping for the bus for dinner. It is so as per Ex.A7 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 defense 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. | |
(d) Ex.A7 dated 16-06-2015 is the document had obtained from Depot Manager, Udayagiri under R.T.I.Act, 2005, which is showing that meals session at MGBS, Hyderabad- 0.45 minutes; Ex.B3 is another document which issued by Depot Manager, Udayagiri explains that meals session down at Ibrahimpatnam. Both are clearly appears that they are contrary with each other. Now, the question is before us that which is to be believed among them, which one is correct or not, is the point for our consideration. First one is that obtained on 16-06-2015 and another one is later on and it is definitely an afterthought by the opposite parties. Here, the accident is undoubtedly happened for one and another death is caused. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that had been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Morris in West Vs. Shephard. 1964A.C. 326; (1963) 2 All ER 625. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant / complainant as per as possible in the same position financially as he was before the accident. Broadly speaking in case of death, the basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses etc., and loss to the estate. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident.
(e) After having scanned entire material on record and considered the rival submissions of the parties to this Consumer Case, we are of the clear opinion that this Consumer Case is a fit one to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants and they are also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. The complainants have got the case and concerned documents are clearly proved their case. The mental agony cannot be measured in terms of money. There is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
XII POINT No.3: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed ordering the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainants and also awarding to them of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the order, accordingly.
Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, pronounced by us in the open Forum,
this the 10th day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for the complainant
P.W.1 - | 05-01-2016 | Sri Devandla Venkateswarlu, S/o.Obulesu, Nellore District.( Deposition Affidavit filed) |
Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties
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) |
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - | 27-12-2014 | Photostat copies of First Information Report No.493/2014 from Shake Basha to the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Cyberabad alongwith letter from Sk. Anwar Basha to the Ibrahimpatnam Inspector, Ibrahimpatnam.
|
Ex.A2 - | 27-12-2014 | Photostat copy of Requisition for Post Mortem Examination, Government of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No.493/2014 from Station House Officer, P.S.Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad to the Medical Officer, Government Civil Hospital, Ibrahimpatnam.
|
Ex.A3 - | 27-12-2014 | Photocopy of Telangana State Police Seva Panchanama Report in Crime No.493/2014 in favour of Devandla Rajyam .
|
Ex.A4 - | 28-01-2015 | Photostat copy of Certificate of Death in favour of Devandla Rajyam, died on 26-12-2014 issued by Office of the Ibrahimpatnam Nagar Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District.
|
Ex.A5 - | 02-03-2015 | Photostat copy of Family Members Certificate in favour of Devandla Rajyam and her family issued by S.V. Ratna Sekhar, Tahasildar, Varikuntapadu through meeseva.
|
Ex.A6 - | 26-12-2014 | Photostat copy of Ticket No.36853848 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
|
Ex.A7 - | 16-06-2015 | Photostat copy of letter from Public Information Officer & Deputy Superintendent (P), Udayagiri to the Md. Raheemkhan, Nellore-524001.
|
Ex.A8 - | 17-08-2015 | Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties alongwith three registered post receipts.
|
Ex.A9 - | 27-08-2015 | One postal acknowledgement received from opposite party No.1 sent by the complainant’s advocate Md. Raheem Khan.
|
Ex.A10 - | - | One postal acknowledgement received from opposite party No.3 sent by the complainant’s advocate Md. Raheem Khan.
|
Ex.A11 - | - | One returned registered post cover received from opposite party No.2 sent by the complainant’s advocate Md. Raheem Khan.
|
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
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.
|
Id/-
PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)
Copies to:
1. | Sri G. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Nellore.
|
2. | Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, 16-3-812, Ramamurthy Nagar, Nellore-524 003.
|
Date when free copy was issued:
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.