Telangana

Khammam

CC/54/2016

Kanmatha Reddy Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age 29 years, Occu Private Employee, R/o. Rejerla Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director / Joint Managing director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 o - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Y.Govardhan

01 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

Dated this, the 1^st  day of May,2018

                      

CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc. LL.M.,}– President

                             2. Sri. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

 

C.C. No.54/2016

Between                              

Kanmatha Reddy Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy,

Age:29 years, Occu: Private Employee,

R/o. Rejerla Village, Sathupally Mandal,

Khammam District.                                                                         …Complainant

 

                             And

1. The Managing Director / Joint Managing director,

TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,

Hyderabad.

 

2. The Regional Manager, TSRTC,

Jublipura, Near Jubli Club,

Beside Over Bridge, Khammam City and District.

 

3. The Depot Manager, TSRTC,

Sathupally Depot, Sathupally Town,

Khammam District.                                              …Opposite parties

 

                      

        This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of  Sri.Y.Goverdhan, Advocate for Complainant; Sri. K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

                                      ORDER

             (Per Sri P. Madhav Raja, President)

 

         This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

1. The set of brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant is native of Rejerla Village and on 06-03-2016 he boarded opposite party’s Bus at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony bearing Bus Service No.8828 of BHEL to Sathupally with valid Ticket No.50887953 and kept his personal luggage of three bags in the Bus dickey, his marriage scheduled is to be held on 10-03-2016 at S.R. Gardens, Khammam and the luggage contains the valuable items related to the marriage i.e. (1) Gents blazer value of Rs.10,000/-, (2) three pairs of shirts and pants worth Rs.10,000/-, (3) two pairs of Lalchi and Paizama value of Rs.2,700/-, (4) five pairs  of Panjabi dresses value of Rs.10,000/-, (5) three  pairs of jackets worth Rs.7,000/-, (6) three photo Albums  worth Rs.750/- and cost of luggage bag Rs.5,000/-.  On 07-03-2016 in the morning hours when the dickey was opened by the driver, one of his bags was missing out of the three bags.  Thereafter the bus driver Lingamurthy did not give any suitable reply about the said missing bag. The total value of the lost goods, articles/cloths is about Rs.45,250/-.  The Opposite Parties jointly and severally liable for the negligent act of its driver. Immediately after loss of his bag the complainant gave a complaint to the local Depot Manager at Sathupally, and a copy was also addressed to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and got obtained acknowledgement from the local depot.  In spite of all, the bag was not recovered.  Hence this complaint under the deficiency of service of Opposite Parties claiming the compensation of Rs.75,250/- with interest @ 24% per annum. 

 

2.      In support of his case, the complainant filed documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-7.

 

Ex.A-1  is the complaint to Depot Manager, TSRTC, Sathupally,dt:08-03-2016.

Ex.A-2  is the photocopy of online passenger ticket No.50887953,

            dt:05-03-2016.

Ex.A-3 is the photocopy of Invoice of Mebaz dt:06-03-2016.

Ex.A-4 is the photocopy of Swathi’s Boutique dt:27-02-2016.

Ex.A-5 is the photocopy of Swathi’s Boutique dt:22-02-2016.

Ex.A-6 is the photocopy of swiping bill dt:06-03-2016. 

Ex.A-7 is the photocopy of Credit Card E-statement of ICICI Bank.

 

3.       On receipt of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 appeared through their Counsel.  The Opposite Party No.3  filed Counter. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 filed Adoption Memo adopting the Counter of Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Parties have denied the contentions of the complainant. Further the Opposite Parties contended in their Counter that the Complainant Kanmatha Reddy Anil Kumar Reddy was boarded the bus at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony bearing service No.8828 and kept his personal luggage in dickey of the bus by himself only at boarding place and he did not informed how many bags kept by him in dickey to the driver, which valuable items were kept in personal luggage bags and its costs worth Rs.42,250/- was not informed to the service driver at the boarding point.  At the time of boarding the driver of Bus service No.8828 informed to the passengers the valuable items of their personal luggage to be observed by themselves while alighting the passengers at stages. Some of passengers alighting the bus at Khammam point, Pallipadu and Kalluru and taken their luggage from the bus dickey.  The Opposite Parties have filed Affidavit of driver in support of their contention and stated further that the complainant has not taken any ticket for his luggage, as such the complainant is responsible for his bags.  The complainant not observed the alighting  passengers, who taken their luggage from the dickey of the bus.  The complainant after alighting at Sathupally, he has found one bag is missing which was kept in the dickey, at the same time the service driver also searched all the bus, but not found his missing bag.  It is the sole responsibility of the passenger/complainant to safeguard his luggage when there are valuable items in his luggage bag, as such the TSRTC is not liable for compensation/damages to the complainant for the alleged worth of Rs.45,250/-.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed that non-joinder of the proper party of duty driver on service bus on that day of journey.  Hence, it is prayed the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.

 

4.      In support of their contentions, the Opposite Parties have not filed any documents.

5.      Heard oral arguments by both sides.

6.      Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for

         consideration are,

 

 (i) Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?

 (ii) If so, to what relief?

 

Point No.(i):-  The complainant had boarded the opposite parties  operated bus on 06-03-2016 at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony bearing Bus Service No.8828 of BHEL to Sathupally with valid Ticket No.50887953 as his marriage scheduled is to be held on 10-03-2016 at S.R. Gardens, Khammam and kept his personal luggage of three bags in the Bus dickey. The luggage contains the valuable items related to the marriage i.e. (1) Gents blazer value of Rs.10,000/-, (2) three pairs of shirts and pants worth Rs.10,000/-, (3) two pairs of Lalchi and Paizama value of Rs.2,700/-,(4) five pairs  of Panjabi dresses value of Rs.10,000/-, (5) three  pairs of jackets worth Rs.7,000/-, (6) three photo Albums  worth Rs.750/- and cost of luggage bag Rs.5,000/-. The opposite parties have not disputed these contentions except that he has not informed the number of baggage to the driver and about the valuables and kept his bags himself.  The Opposite parties have contended further that non-joinder of the proper party of duty driver on service bus on that day of journey. It is also stated by the opposite parties that the driver of the said bus service also searched for the missing luggage. The complainant lodged a complaint to the opposite party No.3 with regard to the missing of bag. Thereafter the opposite parties action was not shown through any documentary evidence and were silent stating that It is the sole responsibility of the passenger/complainant to safeguard his luggage when there are valuable items in his luggage bag, as such the TSRTC is not liable for compensation/damages to the complainant for the alleged worth of Rs.45,250/-.It is settled law that the employer or master and employee relation prevails as long as the employee or servant is with him simply the master cannot skip of his liability, in this instance it is very clear that the complainant had kept his bag in the dickey of the bus and the dickey will have lock and key and it will be under watch and ward of the attendant or the driver of the Bus, here the opposite parties were silent and have not taken any word of the lock and key of the dickey and during the journey in the night no one would wake up at every halt and check their bags. At the time of keeping the bag in the dickey the driver must have observed because he will have key and without him no one can open and keep or take the bags. the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in the case of The Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. A. Marimuthu; 2010 NCJ 703 (NC), wherein it was held that the plea of defense can only be accepted with acceptable evidence. In the case in hand, the appellant - Corporation has not filed any evidence to show that no suitcase / luggage were being carried by the complainant during the journey and the same was not lost in transit. The bus dickey is always under watch and ward of the attendant or the driver and the boot space is meant for  keeping luggage.  The Hon'ble National Commission in  Divisional Railway Manager and another Vs. Abhishankar Adhikari; 2006 NCJ 160 (NC) case, the luggage was stolen from AC 3 tier coach and in one more decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in G.M. South Central Railway Vs. Dr. R.V. Kumar and another; 2005 (2) CPR 37 (NC) observed that theft took place in reserved compartment, which means if any compartment which is under watch and ward and if anything is lost from it amounts to deficiency of the service. The complainant had lodged a complaint to the opposite party number 3 and the driver being worker of him kept silent and had not explained in his counter regarding enquiry or action taken by him. Therefore the opposite party number 3 is held responsible and also the all opposite parties are under obligation of vicarious liability hence the point is answered in favour of the complainant and he is liable to get relief as there is deficiency of service.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Point No.(ii):- even a passenger, who traveled in a bus, paying fare with permissible luggage, then in respect of that luggage also, he should be construed as a consumer and the carrier namely the Bus should be construed as service provider. we are in view that admittedly  the bags were accompanied with the passenger, though it was in the dickey and the complainant has proved, that he had kept bag at boarding point and the opposite party having custody, failed to hand over one bag whatever may be the conditions, then it should be construed as deficiency in service. Relying on order of the Hon’ble state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chennai in F.A.103/2009 Against order in C.C.67/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)] dated this the 21st day of march 2011 between: Praveen Travels (P) Ltd., Appellant/OP Vs. Mohamed Meeran, Respondent / Complainant,  we are in view that in the absence of proof, though a bag was missed, by the opposite party, which does contained the cloths and other articles Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-7,  ordering to pay the value or the amount, is not proper and correct and if at all, the opposite party should be directed to go to Civil Court to work out his remedy, since the Consumer Forum can award compensation only for deficiency in service of service provider and for the recovery any other loss, such as cloths jewel, and other articles it is open to the consumer to file a civil suit. Considering the missing of bag and the lack of substantiate evidence in support of opposite parties contentions we hold the deficiency in service is committed by the opposite parties alone, we feel, ends of justice would be meet, by ordering a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, with direction to the complainant, if he wishes, to work out his remedy for the loss of cloths and other articles, before the Civil Forum and the point is answered accordingly.

 8.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties number 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and with cost of Rs.1,000/-  to the complainant. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of default.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 1^st day of May,2018).

                                                                                       

                               

                    Member                           President

                                                          District Consumer Forum, Khammam.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

   

Ex.A1:-	is the complaint to Depot Manager, TSRTC, Sathupally,dt:08-03-2016.		Nil
Ex.A2:	is the photocopy of online passenger ticket No.50887953,dt:05-03-2016.
Ex.A3:	is the photocopy of Invoice of Mebaz dt:06-03-2016.
Ex.A4:	is the photocopy of Swathi’s Boutique dt:27-02-2016.
Ex.A5:	is the photocopy of Swathi’s Boutique dt:22-02-2016.
Ex.A6:	is the photocopy of swiping bill dt:06-03-2016.
Ex.A7:	is the photocopy of Credit Card E-statement of ICICI Bank.

 

                     

 

                      Member                         President

                                                          District Consumer Forum, Khammam.