Date of Filing:16.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:22.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1583 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> A. Indu Katariya,<br /> No.14, Pettigrew Street,<br /> Behind Bharathi Nagar Police Station,<br /> Bangalore-560 001. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Managing Director,<br /> K.S.R.T.C, K.H. Road,<br /> Bangalore Central Division, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. Divisional Controller,<br /> K.S.R.T.C, Bangalore Central Division,<br /> Majestic Bus Stand, Bangalore. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Indu Katariya. The facts of the case are that, she traveled from Ooty to Bangalore on 13th May-2008 by the K.S.R.T.C bus. She was carrying 4 luggages with her. Conductor asked them to keep in the dicky. The Conductor opened the dicky and her mother kept all the luggages in the dicky. The complainant asked the Conductor to lock the dicky as it is not safe but lock was not put to dicky. Since suitcases were big in size they could not take inside the bus. Therefore, the luggages are kept in the dicky. The complainant and her family members reached Bangalore in the morning and all the passengers got down from the bus. The Conductor having no curtsey to ask the complainant about the luggage. As per the case of the complainant she received only three luggages and one luggage was lost. By not finding one luggage she went to Upparpet Police Station, but they did not register her complaint. Then she went to K.S.R.T.C Control room. They asked her to go to Police Station. She was going around with child till 4 “O” Clock in the evening without food and water. She called her aunt and fought with Depot Manger and got her complaint registered. She was asked to come on next day, she went and meet the Conductor and asked him about the luggage. He spoke very roughly. People from the Depot behaved very rudely as if complainant was beggar. Then the complainant went to the Director of the K.S.R.T.C. There was meeting with the officers. Conductor agreed to give compensation, but complainant gave him time to search the suitcase. After days again complainant met him and asked him to enquire about it. Conductor agreed and was ready to pay Rs.20,000/- which the complainant refused to take it because the loss occurred was Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint for redressal and she has asked the Forum to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, litigation costs of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony. The present complainant presented the complaint in person. The complaint is hand written. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite party put in appearance through Advocate and defense version filed stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Complaint had been filed under misconception of law. There was no service or commitment by opposite party with regard to personal luggage. Opposite party has not collected any fare or charges and no receipts were issued for the luggage. Opposite party submits that the complainant has traveled in the bus bearing No.KA-01 F-7857 on 13/05/2008 from Ooty to Bangalore. It is also true that she booked the ticket bearing No.21, 23 & 24 by one Mr. Magesh. Facility for keeping the luggage inside the bus provided for the convenience of the passengers. Complainant has purchased ticket for traveling service provided by the opposite party from Ooty to Bangalore. Dicky facility for keeping the luggage is provided by the opposite party in their busses free of costs. As and when respective destinations arrive, the passengers have to identify their own luggage and collect them. It is submitted that the Conductor who has allowed the passengers to keep their luggage in the dicky on their own and at that time it is humanly possible for any person to keep identification of luggage of each passengers unless specific receipt has been issued and a marking has been made on the luggage. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Complainant filed her affidavit evidence. Likewise Mr. Magesh Senior Depot Manager has also filed affidavit evidence. The complainant argued her case in person since she has not engaged lawyer. Arguments of Advocate for the opposite party are also heard. The matter is taken for orders. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation for the loss of her luggage (one suitcase)? <br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant Smt. Indu Katariya had traveled in the KSRTC Bus Rajahamsa on 13/05/2008 from Ooty to Bangalore. The Divisional Controller, K.B.S, Bangalore has given a letter on 23/05/2008 admitting that the complainant Smt. Indu Katariya had traveled from Ooty to Bangalore and in the said letter it has been intimated that the complaint of the complainant had been forwarded to the Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C, Central Division, Bangalore for taking necessary action. As per the case of the complainant she had four luggages. She booked two full tickets and one half ticket. Conductor asked her to keep her luggages in the dicky. Since the suitcases were big they cannot be carried into the bus. The complainant put her all four suitcases in the dicky as per the instructions of the Conductor. The complainant asked the Conductor to put the lock to the dicky but unfortunately the Conductor told her that there was no lock. Therefore, dicky could not be locked. The complainant and her family members reached to Bangalore at 8-30 AM. She got down from the bus and unloaded three luggages, but to her surprise she could not find one more suitcase in the dicky. After not finding one luggage the complainant went to Upparpet Police Station to lodge complaint. The Police asked her to go to K.S.R.T.C Central Room and the K.S.R.T.C people again asked her to go to Police Station. In this way the complainant was asked to go to pillar to post. The complainant states that she had a small child and she was made to wander here and there with all mental agony and tension up to 4 “O” Clock without any food and water. Ultimately, she met Depot Manager Mr. Srinivasan and registered her complaint. The complainant states that the Depot Manager asked her to meet Driver and Conductor face to face. She states that the Conductor spoke very roughly with her when she enquired about the luggage. The complainant states that the Conductor had agreed to give compensation of Rs.20,000/- which she refused to take because loss occurred was Rs.1,00,000/-. The defense taken by the opposite party is that, the opposite party has not collected any luggage charges and no receipt had been issued to the complainant. In view of this the loss of the personal luggage of the passenger is at their own risk and therefore opposite party is not responsible for the loss of the luggage which was kept in the dicky. Conductor allows the passengers to keep their luggage in the dicky on their own without knowing the contents of the luggage. The passengers have to identify their own luggage and collect them after getting down from the bus. This is the defense of the opposite party. It is true that the complainant has not taken receipt for the luggage. It is also true that the complainant has not paid the luggage charges. The complainant traveled from Ooty to Bangalore in the opposite party bus by taking tickets. Personal luggage or suitcase will be allowed along with the passenger. Question of taking separate receipt or giving luggage charge does not arise. The complainant had kept four suitcases in the dicky because the complainant traveled with two full tickets and one half ticket. The opposite party cannot escape its liability by saying that luggage charges are not recovered from the complainant. It is the duty and obligation of the opposite party to safeguard the personal property of the passengers. The opposite party being a Service Provider acts as a trustee of the luggage or property of the passengers. The opposite party cannot wash off its hand by saying that the passengers traveled in the bus and the opposite party cannot take responsibility of their luggage. The opposite party cannot be permitted in law that carrying luggage will be at the risk of the passengers. It is unfortunate that the opposite party has failed in its duty in not locking the dicky. The Conductor told the complainant that there was no lock to be put to the dicky. Therefore, the dicky was not locked. The complainant has alleged rough and rude behavior of the staff of the opposite party she was to wander from pillar to post and there was nobody to hear her complaint or grievances. The complainant is a helpless lady coming from middle class family and she lost her suitcase. She has been put to great mental stress, tension and agony apart from the monitory loss. The Hon’ble National Commission in a case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Muktiyar Singh reported in IV (2006) CPJ 180 (NC) has been held as under:-<br /> 2586. DTC – Senior citizen benefits – Complainant very old and sick man – Manhandled by staff of DTC on account of his failure to produce certificate that he was senior citizen – State Commission allowed complaint – Hence present appeal – Incident immediately brought to notice of Senior Manager of DTC, specifically revealed that senior citizen pass was shown to ATIs, but same was snatched by them, insulted him, dragged him down and caused injuries – His injuries and immediate complaint sufficient proof of say of complainant – Complaint rightly allowed – Order upheld. (Revision Petition dismissed)<br /> <br /> Held that, in our view, this is not a fit case for the DTC for approaching this Commission. The State Commission has appropriately dealt with this aspect and printed out that a very old and sick person was manhandled by the staff of the DTC on the ground that he failed to produce the certificate that he was a senior citizen. The complainant remained present before the State Commission and also before us today. Even a person having weak eye-sight can say that the complainant is a senior citizen and his age would be above 70 years. Despite this, he was asked to purchase a ticket for a sum of Rs.10. The Senior Citizen Pass was snatched from him and he was manhandled. On that basis, he approached the various Authorities including the District Consumer Forum.<br /> <br /> In the appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission finally accepted the contention of the complainant and observed that the grievances of such consumers are required to be considered in a broader prospective and not in malicious or with a mathematical details or precision. The Commission observed that the incident was immediately brought to the notice of a Senior Manager, DTC at Scindia House where he had specifically revealed that his senior citizen pass was shown to those ATIs but they retained the said pass and snatched Rs.50 from him and insulted him, dragged him and caused him injuries. His injuries as well as immediate complaint were sufficient proof of the say of the complainant.<br /> <br /> In our view, the State Commission was fully justified in passing the impugned order on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Guupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243. The legislation is a mile stone in the history of socio-economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit. It attempts to remove the helplessness of consumer which he faces against “powerful business, described as a ‘network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of the public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction ....... Leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. <br /> <br /> Held further that, present case reveals that an aged senior citizen was not only manhandled but was required to approach one Forum or other or approach higher authorities for Redressal of his grievances and he could get justice only at the hands of the State Commission. No doubt, instead of succumbing to the pressure, we appreciate his courage of withstanding such agony.<br /> <br /> Held further that, in this view of the matter, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted as it is in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court. The State Commission has exercised in a most equitable manner and in conformity with the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> <br /> DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. MUKTHAR SINGH, IV (2006) 180 (NC)<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. In this case the complainant being a helpless lady she even is not in a position to engage Lawyer, presented her complaint personally and she argued her case and explained the rough behavior of opposite party staff and she came from middle class family and she was put to great loss on account of not getting her one luggage and she requested to grant reasonable amount of compensation. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers. The opposite party should have granted exgratia compensation. The opposite party in this case being a trustee of the property of the passengers cannot escape its liability on the ground that the complainant has not taken luggage receipt. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments, it is a fit case to grant some compensation to the complainant for the loss of her luggage. The complainant has submitted that she had kept a valuable sarees and jewellery in the suitcase and she lost articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-. This may be exaggerated version. There is no proof whatsoever to show or establish that articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- was kept in the suitcase. Therefore, that cannot be accepted without there being any legal proof. But taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party can be directed to pay global compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realization. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> Rhr., <br />