Date of filing:04.11.2013

Date of disposal:15.04.2014  

                               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.

                                    PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)

                                              Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member

                                                       Tuesday, the 15^th day of April, 2014

                                                                C.C.No148/2013

Between:

J.Prasad S/o J.Gangi Setty,

Thumu Kunta Check Post,

Hindupur Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District.                     …                               Complainant

                   Vs

1.       The Depot Manager,

          APSRTC, Hindupur Depot,

          Ananthapuramu District.

2.       The Managing Director,

          APSRTC, Bus Bhavan,

          Hyderabad.                                                     …                    Opposite parties.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of  Sri M.Sreenatha Reddy and Y.Jaffar Siddiq, Advocates for the complainant and Sri B.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

                                                                                            O R D E R

Smt. M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties  1 & 2 to direct him to pay a sum of Rs.31,834/- towards  the costs of the goods and the cost of the passenger ticket  with interest 24% P.A. from the date of ticket purchased i.e., 06.03.2012 till the date of payment  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant purchased passenger ticket bearing No.TN-A71647 costs of Rs.402/-, luggage ticket bearing No.TN-A71649 costs of Rs.22/-toward luggage fare, total fare Rs.424/- travel from Hyderabad to Hindupur on 06.03.2012 in the 1^st opposite party bus  bearing No.AP-28-Z-5224, which belong to APSRTC Hindupur Depot. The luggage contained the new sarees worth of Rs.31,410/- which were purchased the new sareers at Hyderabad for family function purpose and the same were carried by the complainant along with him and loaded in the dickey of the opposite party bus. On that day A.Bhasheer was driver and Shivappa was conductor in the opposite party bus and the bus started from MGBS Bus stand, Hyderabad.When the said bus reached Jetcharla bus stand, the complainant checked the luggage in the dickey, but the complainant’s luggage was not found in the dickey in spite of the best efforts made by the complainant. The complainant immediately brought the said fact of missing of luggage to the notice of the driver and conductor of the said bus and also controller of the Jetcharla bus stand. Further the complainant approached to the police authorities at Jetcharla.  The police at Jetcharla advised the complainant to got to Hyderabad and enquire at MGBS Bus Stand and make enquiries regarding the luggage and he was further advised to prefer a complaint to the police at Hyderabad. Immediately the complainant cancel his journey to Hindupur and proceeded to Hyderabad in order to make enquires at the MGBS bus stand regarding to his luggage.  The complainant also preferred a complaint at the Afzalguz police station at Hyderabad city regarding the missing of his luggage. But so far neither the APSRTC authorities nor the police have traced out the missing luggage of complainant. The complainant entitled for reimbursement of the cost of the goods which was lost in the transit and opposite parties are liable to reimburse the same to the complainant   Opposite parties are also liable to pay the cost of the passenger ticket bearing No.A71647 i.e., Rs.402/- and the cost of luggage ticket and bearing No.TN-A71649 being Rs.22/- from Hyderabad to Hindupur in total of Rs.31,834/-.

3.       The 2^nd opposite party filed a counter alleging that the luggage contained that new sarees worth of Rs.31,410/-purchased by the complainant at Hyderabad for family function and the same were carried by the complainant along with him, and loaded in the dickey of the said bus is false and denied the same. Infact the opposite party buss are plying passengers carrying services not for goods carrier services according to the rules and regulations the opposite party is permitted the passengers carrying their own luggage on free of cost with the risk of passenger. If luggage exceeds the corporation will collect fair as per rules and regulations if the risk of the passengers. The carrying of luggage is at the own risk of passengers only not by the opposite party driver and conductor. The service conductor did not mention the contents of passenger’s luggage in ticket.  The allegation made in para No.2 of the complaint that, when the bus was reached to Jetcharla Bus stand, the complainant checked for luggage in the dickey but he did not filed the same inspite of best efforts made by the complainant is false and denied the same.  It is once again reiterated that the carrying of luggage belonging to passengers are it’s their own risk.  The opposite party corporation is not responsible for luggage of passengers at any circumstances.  The further alleged that, immediately brought the said fact of missing of complainant’s luggage to the notice of the driver and conductor of the said bus and also controller of the Jedcherla bus stand and that approached the police at Jadcherla and they advised him to go to Hyderabad and enquire at MGBS Bus stand and make enquiries regarding the luggage and advised him to prefer a complaint to the police at Hyderabad is false and denied the same.   If any theft is occurred it is the duty of the concerned police to trace out the same.  But here the complainant has not furnished any FIR to that effect.          The alleged made in para No.3 of the complaint that immediately complainant cancelled his journey to Hindupur and proceeded to Hyderabad in order to make enquires at the MGBS Bus station regarding to his luggage and that he also preferred a complaint at the Afzalgunz police station at Hyderabad City regarding the missing of his luggage is false and denied the same. Whether the complainant preferred any complaint to the Afzalgunz police is not known to this opposite parties.  The complainant further alleged that neither APSRTC authorities nor the police have traced out the missing luggage of the complainant is also false and denied the same. In fact it is not the duty of this opposite party corporation to trace out the alleged missing of luggage belonging to complainant. The allegation made in para No.4 of complainant that he is entitled for reimbursement of the costs of the goods which was lost in the transit and the opposite parties both being transporters are liable to reimburse the made to the complainant being owner of the goods and further alleged that the cost of the goods Rs.31,410/- and the opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of the passenger ticket Rs.402/- and cost of luggage ticket Rs.22/- total Rs.31,834 is also false and denied the same. The opposite parties corporation is not at all liable to pay the said amounts to the complainant at any circumstances.  The complainant further alleged in the same para that the driver and conductor of the corporation failed to discharge their duties in safeguarding the luggage loaded in the dickey and that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.31,834/- being the cost of goods and the cost of the passenger ticket and the cost of luggage ticket besides Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony caused to the complainant is false and denied the same.  It is not the duty of the driver and conductor of said bus to safeguard the luggage of passengers.  It is the duty of the passenger to safe guard his own luggage.  The opposite parties are not liable to pay the said amount claimed by the complainant.  It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service caused to the complainant and more over the complainant has filed this unjust frivolous and vexatious complaint against the opposite parties for harassing the public service corporation. Hence prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.       1^st opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter of 2^nd opposite party.

5.       Basing on the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1& 2?

ii)      To what relief?

6.       In order to prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A6. Evidence on affidavit of the 1^st opposite party has been filed and marked Exs.B1 & B2 on behalf of 1^st opposite party.

7.       Heard both sides.

8.       POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant travelled from the 1^st opposite party bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-5224 on 06.03.2012 from Hyderabad to Hindupur by paying a sum of Rs.402/- towards charges and a sum of Rs.22/- luggage ticket bearing No.TN-A71647 and its TN-A71649.  At the time of entering into the bus the employees of the opposite parties has taken the language containing new sarees worth of Rs.31,410/-  loaded in the dickey of the above said bus on the day A.Bhasheer was driver and Shivappa was conductor.  The bus started from MGBS bus stand Hyderabad, when bus reached to  Jetcharla Bus Stand the complainant checked for luggage  in the dickey the complainant luggage was not found in the dickey he made best his efforts to trace the same.  Immediately same was informed to driver and conductor of the bus and also controller of the Jatcharla Bus Stand. The complainant immediately approached the Jetcharla Police, the Jetcharla police advised the complainant to go to Hyderabad and enquire at MGBS Bus Stand and make enquiry regarding the luggage and prefer the complaint to the police at Hyderabad. The complainant preferred a complaint before the Afzalgunz police station at Hyderabad city. But so far, neither the APSRTC authorities nor the police have traced out the missing luggage. Then the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties dt.28.01.2013 reimburse the missing luggage of bag containing sarees worth of Rs.31,834/-, for the same the corporation got issued reply but they failed to pay the amount. Hence he filed the present complaint. To prove his case the complainant filed Ex.A1 to A6 documents.

9.       Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the luggage is kept in the dickey only on the risk of the passenger, as the carrying of luggage is at the own risk of passengers only not by this opposite party corporation driver and conductor.  The counsel also argued that the passengers bounden duty is to take care of their luggage. The opposite parties are allowed to carry 50 Kg of luggage on free of cost, and the opposite parties are not liable for luggage of passengers at any circumstances.  And there is no proof that the complainant made a complaint before the driver and conductor and controller of Jetcharla Bus Stand the complainant also failed to file F.I.R. copy of complaint to Afzalgunz police. The counsel gave kind attention before this Forum that if theft is occurred it is the duty of the concerned policy to trace out the same but not by the opposite parties, the counsel for the opposite party also denied the payment of costs of tickets and goods as claimed by the complainant. The counsel also argued that it is not the duty of the opposite parties to trace out the missing luggage belonging to complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled any amount as claimed in the complaint.

10.     On perusal of Ex.A2 that the complainant travelled in APSRTC Depot Hindupur bus on 06.03.2012 by paying a sum of Rs.402/- costs of the tickets and also a sum of Rs.22/- towards luggage ticket.  There is no dispute with regard to issue of the above said tickets by the employees of the opposite parties to the complainant, the complainant also filed bills pertaining to purchase of sarees and etc., on 06.03.2012 at Hyderabad. There is no denial about this bills by the opposite parties, simply denying the liability.  Ex.A3 dt.07.03.2012 is the complaint given by the complainant to the Afzalgunz police requesting to trace the luggage missing in the dickey of bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-5224 of the opposite parties, the opposite parties denying the complaint which is marked under Ex.A3 because there is no F.I.R. for the above said complaint. This Forum is believing Ex.A3 because under Ex.A3 it is clearly mentioned that the complainant kept luggage in the dickey and the same was misplaced. Later the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was served under Ex.A4 & A5 for the same the opposite parties gave reply under Ex.A6 stating that while acknowledging your complaint at reference cited, the complaint has been referred to Regional Manager APSRTC Anantapur Region to submit report on the action taken. No sooner report is received from RM/ATP i.e., reply to the notice of the complainant.

11.     The opposite party filed Ex.B1 Manual of APSRTC stating that the luggage and parcel of passengers will be carried if accommodation for its owners risk and responsibility as per this rule.  The opposite part is not liable to pay any amount because the complainant kept the luggage in dickey at his own risk. The arguments of opposite party is vague because the corporation did not inform about the rules while the passengers travelled in their corporation buses when any complaint is preferred then only they will try to explain the rules framed by them.  If we think as a common man the opposite parties forcibly use to take the luggage of the passengers to kept in dickey even though the passengers tried to convince to keep the luggage with them instead of keeping in the dickey. The opposite parties corporation not flying more buses as required to gain more amount they used to board the passengers than the capacity allotted to the bus, for this the opposite parties people used to keep the luggage in dickey or on the top of the bus. Though they never tried to inform the rules framed by them to the passengers.  Admittedly in the present case the complainant has taken luggage ticket for the goods carried by him at the time of his travel, if the complainant is allowed to carry his luggage bag besides him then the question of missing does not arise if it lost then the complainant has no voice.  The opposite party contended that when the luggage exceed more than 50 K.G. then only luggage ticket will issued, but the opposite party failed to prove that the luggage carried by the complainant is more than 50 K.G they simply argued that the corporation is not at all liable for missing article. The opposite party filed on order in C.C.No.94/2005 passed by this Forum dt.21.04.2006 that was dismissed, stating that fact of the present case is also same. Hence, dismiss the complaint.  When we go through the contents of the C.C.94/2005 and the present case facts are quite different because in the above said case the opposite parties not issued any ticket to the complainant, and she has not filed any documents relating to purchase of goods, and the luggage was kept in top of the bus and the opposite parties were examined the authorities to prove their case. In the present case they never tried to examine officials of their corporation to prove the case.  The courts/forum use to look into orders of the appellate courts. Hence we are not considering the order of this Forum. The complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and there is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties failed to prove their case and the opposite parties simply stated that they are not liable to pay the missing of  luggage,  because luggage will be kept only on the risk of the passengers but not by the corporation risk for the same they have not filed any document to show that the people of the corporation has not kept the luggage of the complainant in the dickey.  Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.  Though the  luggage was misplaced in the course of his travel  and he informed immediately to the authorities but they failed to give proper reply and the complainant waited for proper reply more than a year for this he suffered mental agony on the attitude of the opposite parties.

POINT NO.2:- In the result,   the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.31,410/-towards costs of the sarees and Rs.424/- towards  costs of the tickets to the complainant, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of this order failing which interest @9% P.A. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 15^th day of April, 2014.

                   Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

             LADY MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT(FAC)

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM                                  DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

                ANANTAPUR                                                            ANANTAPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:          ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES

-NIL -                                                                         - NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1           Original cash bills dt.06.03.2012 in favour of the complainant.

Ex.A2           Original bus ticket and luggage tickets.

Ex.A3           Complaint dt.07.03.2012 submitted by the complainant to the Circle Inspector Afzuljunj P.S. Hyderabad.

Ex.A4           Office copy of the legal notice 28.01.2012 got issued by the complainant

                   to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2.

Ex.A5           Post acknowledgements singed by the Opposite Parties 1 &2.

Ex.A6        Reply letter dt.12.03.2013 issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1& 2                                                     

Ex.B1           Photo copy Manual of Operations of the Opposite parties.

Ex.B2          Photo copy of order C.C.94/2005 dt21.04.2006 of District Consumer

                   Forum Anantapur.

                      Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-

             LADY MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT(FAC)

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM                                  DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

                ANANTAPUR                                                            ANANTAPUR