Andhra Pradesh

Guntur

CC/11/74

P Suresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Depo Manager of APSRTC - Opp.Party(s)

RKSM

26 Jul 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: : GUNTUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/74
 
1. P Suresh
Irukupalem, Muppalla, Guntur
Guntur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Depo Manager of APSRTC
Sattenapalli Depo,
Guntur
2. The Managing Director
APSRTC,Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,Hyderabad
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. A Hazarath Rao PRESIDENT
  SMT T. SUNEETHA, M.S.W., B.L., MEMBER
 HONORABLE Sri M.V.L. Radha Krishna Murthy Member
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

  This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 21-07-11 in the presence of Sri R.K.S. Murthy, advocate for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act claiming Rs.1,27,683/- payable under ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’; Rs.72,317/- towards mental agony and for costs.

 

2.     In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

One P. Dharma Rao worked as driver with the 1st opposite party with badge No.102280.   The said Dharma Rao died on 23-08-09 leaving behind his wife Venkayamma and the complainant herein as legal heirs.   The said Venkayamma died on 10-05-10.   Every employee of APSRTC organization is entitled to the benefits of  ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’. The complainant submitted his application along with death certificates of his parents.   The 1st opposite party did not choose to settle the claim made by the complainant.   The complainant sent notice to the opposite parties                 1 and 2 demanding to settle the claim.   But the opposite parties did not settle their claim.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

 

3.    Opposite parties remained exparte.

 

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of complainant.

 

5.   Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

 

  1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits of his father under the ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
  3. To what relief?    

 

6.   POINT No.1:-       Exs.A-1 and A-2 revealed that P. Dharma Rao and his wife died on 29-08-09 and 10-05-10 respectively.   Ex.A-3 is proper person certificate.

 

7.     Ex.A-7 revealed that the 1st opposite party addressed a letter to the 2nd opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant with regard to SBT claim of the deceased Dharma Rao who worked as driver.   It can therefore be inferred that the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not settle SBT claim payable to the deceased Dharma Rao.

 

8.     The complainant claimed Rs.1,27,683/- towards ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’.   The complaint was silent as to how he complainant arrived that amount.   Under those circumstances, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to settle the claim of the Dharma Rao under ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’ will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this point is answered accordingly.

 

9.     POINT No.2:- The complainant did not aver that he suffered mental agony though claimed Rs.72,317/-.   It appears to us that the complainant claimed Rs.72,317/- to arrive at a round figure of Rs.2,00,000/- when added the amount claimed under ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’.   In the absence of any averment about the complainant suffering mental agony we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation towards mental agony.   This point is therefore answered against the complainant.

 

10.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

  1. The opposite parties are directed to settle the claim of the complainant in respect of the amount payable to the deceased Dharma Rao under ‘APSRTC Staff Benevolent-cum-thrift fund’.
  2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
  3. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

 

        Dictated to Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 26th day of              July, 2011.

 

 

 

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.No

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS

A1

01-09-09

Death certificate of P. Dharma Rao

A2

05-06-10

Death certificate of P. Venkayamma

A3

25-06-10

Proper person certificate

A4

16-12-10

Copy of legal notice got issued on behalf of complainant to opposite parties

A5

-

Acknowledgment

A6

-

Acknowledgment

A7

30-06-10

Copy of letter addressed by 1st opposite party to                            2nd opposite party

 

 

For opposite parties:   NIL

 

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. A Hazarath Rao]
PRESIDENT
 
[ SMT T. SUNEETHA, M.S.W., B.L.,]
MEMBER
 
[HONORABLE Sri M.V.L. Radha Krishna Murthy]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly 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.