BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Monday, the 04^th day of March, 2013

CC. No. 01 of 2013

Between:

Neeli Sharadha W/o late Papaiah,

Aged : 36 years, Occ: Labour R/o Konapur village,

Sadasivpet Mandal, District Medak.                                        ……Complainant                       

                   And

1. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.

Zaheerabad Depot, Dist. Medak.

2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,

Medak Region at Sangareddy, Dist Medak.                ……Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 01.03.2013 in the presence of Sri Md. Zulfikar Hussain, Advocate for complainant and Opposite parties called absent and set exparte and the arguments of complainant heard, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)

                   The present complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming as amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Vanitha Family Card Coverage and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation with costs, by the complainant. Her contention, in brief, is that she obtained above said card from APSRTC for the validity period from 10.07.2011 to 09.07.2013 in which her two minor children viz., Master Neeli Anil Kumar (son) and Ms. Neeli Malleshwari (daughter) were also included as members. She has further contended that on 02.09.2011, at about 9.10 a.m. while Ms. Neeli Malleshwari was boarding the RTC bus AP 11 Z 0289, she fell down and sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment. As per the complainant, the said accident took place on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the bus driver. When she made a claim for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- covered by the said family card scheme by issuing a legal  notice, it was not respected to by the respondents which constrained her to approach this Forum with the present complaint.

2.         Though notices were served on both the opposite parties, they remained absent and consequently were set exparte.

3.         The complainant has relied on Exs. A1 to A12 to substantiate her claim.

4.     The learned counsel for the complainant did not submit written arguments but however advanced his oral arguments.

5.           Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the amount covered by the Vanitha Family Card and compensation as prayed for on the ground of deficiency in service?

Point:

6.              It is evident from the Vanitha Family Card bearing No. 23845 issued by the respondent No. 1 vide Ex. A12 that the risk of the complainant and her minor children, Master Neeli Anil Kumar and Ms. Neeli Malleshwari was covered for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, among other benefits. As seen from the criminal case record under Ex. A1 to A6, the deceased Ms. Neeli Malleshwari met with an accident on 02.09.2011 while boarding the RTC Bus AP 11 Z 0289 on account of rash and negligent act of the bus driver in driving the bus resulting in bodily injuries and that she succumbed to the same while under going treatment at a hospital. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice vide Ex. A7 to both the parties. Having received the same, they did not respond and as such she came up with the present complaint. Even in the present case when the notices were served on them they did not choose to contest but remained exparte.  From all these facts it is crystal clear that the deceased met with a bus accident and lost her life during the validity period of the Vanitha Family Card. As per the terms and conditions of the said card, Ex. A12 the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ex-gratia, as noted supra. The non consideration of the complainant’s request by the opposite parties even after receiving of the legal notice, in our considered view, certainly amounts to deficiency in service in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the given set of facts and circumstances we hold that the complainant is entitled for a reasonable compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain, suffering and mental agony apart from the assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also costs of the litigation. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

7.                In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards coverage of the Vanitha Family Card Scheme and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with costs of Rs. 1,000/- . Time for compliance: One month.

                   Dictated to Stenographer, after correction the order was pronounced by us in the open court this the 04^th day of March, 2013.

        Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                       Sd/-

      MALE MEMBER     LADY MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Copy to

1)   The Complainant

2)   The Opp.parties

3)   Spare copy