Delhi

North

CC/36/2018

SHIVAM SRIVASTAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

UPSRTC - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.36/2018

In the matter of

Shivam Srivastav                

R/o D-1, Sewa Kutir,

Department of Social Welfare,

GTB Nagar, Delhi- 110009                                                                         …Complainant        

Versus

UPSRTC (Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation)

HQ, Tehri Kothi, MG Marg,

Lucknow – 226001                                                                                      ...Opposite Party                                                                              

ORDER

10/09/2024

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this commission has been invoked by Sh. Shivam Srivastav, the complainant against Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred as UPSRTC), the Opposite Party i.e. OP with the allegation of deficiency of service.

1. Facts as mentioned in the complaint are that, on 23/09/2017, at 06:50 A.M. the complainant boarded luxury AC Janrath Bus (UP33AT2467) plied by UPSRTC from Delhi terminal. The bus started around 07:15 A.M. for its destination to Dehradun. The complainant kept his luggage bag on the vacant seat next to him and a bag containing laptop on the shelf provided above the seat.
2. The bus halted at Fortune Grand restaurant near Khatauli, Muzaffar Nagar and resumed journey towards Dehradun around 12:00 to 12:15 P.M and reached its destination around 02:00 P.M.
3. When the complainant picked up his bags and found that the chain of his laptop was open and someone had stolen his laptop. The driver and conductor of the bus were informed but they did not entertain the grievance of the complainant. Police was informed by calling at 100 no., where he was asked to report the incident to the Police Post at ISBT, Dehradun.
4. The complainant has further stated that upon his report, the police officials enquired from the driver and the conductor about the camera footage. The conductor and the driver informed that the camera installed in the bus was not functioning properly therefore, the stolen laptop could not be recovered.
5. The issue was escalated with the DIG Police, Dehradun and FIR was also registered. Similarly, a complaint was also made the Chairman, UPSRTC, Lucknow, which was replied stating that the case did not fall in their area.
6. It has been alleged by the complainant that though the cameras were installed in the luxury bus but same were non-functional and the police could not trace the thief and recover the laptop. At same time OP is charging higher fare in the name of luxury bus but has failed to provide services in terms of security and safety of the passengers and goods. Thus, non-functioning of camera in the bus is deficiency in service.
7. The complainant has further alleged that due to the act of OP, he has incurred loss of personal information, education material of his engineering course and mental trauma as he had exam scheduled for next day of incident.
8. Hence, the present complaint with the prayer for directions to OP to return the sum of Rs.42,300/- (laptop- Rs. 27,500/- and software- Rs. 9,800/- + Rs.5,000/-); compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment and any other order which the forum deemed fit and proper.
9. The complainant has annexed: the complaint dated 23/07/2017 to the Post In-charge, ISBT Dehradun; FIR no. 281/17 with district Dehradun; detailed invoice dated 14/07/2015 for the laptop; printout of the bus ticket, with the complaint.
10. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP, thereafter, written statement was filed on their behalf raising several preliminary objections such as the Complainant was false, fabricated and vexatious; there was no cause of action against O.P. as no such incident occurred on 23/09/2017, and Complainant has not produced any proof of carrying valuable item during the journey.
11. It is not mandatory to install CCTV camera in luxury AC Janrath Bus except in the pink buses meant for ladies only travellers. It has been denied that the complainant was carrying laptop as no such disclosure/intimation was made by the complainant at the time of purchasing the ticket or boarding the bus. The complainant was required to take care of luggage and his belongings .In case of any untoward incident, a complaint was not lodged in the complaint book and was not disclosed to the driver or conductor of the bus. It has been denied that any theft of laptop took place due to the negligence of the O.P.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied with the prayer for dismissing the complaint.
12. Rejoinder to the written statement of O.P. was filed by the complainant. It has been submitted by the complainant that the date of incident was 23/07/2017 and inadvertently in the complaint it was mentioned as 23/09/2017.  It is gathered from the driver of the bus that the camera was installed but the same was not functioning. The OP has never put a system in place so that any passenger is informed about making disclosure of the valuable at the time of purchase of ticket or boarding the bus.  It was submitted that the traveller do take care of their luggage and belongings, but in the long journey when the bus itself stops at a place for    30-40 minutes, passengers get down to answer nature’s call and cannot carry luggage along in the toilet.  
13. The complainant immediately informed the driver and conductor of the bus and called no. 100 when he found that his laptop had been stolen, Police attended the call; the driver and conductor were questioned at the spot about the theft.
14. Evidence by way of affidavit have been filed by both the parties reiterating the facts of the complaint and written statement respectively.
15. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant and OP and have perused the material placed on record.  It is seen that pursuant to the objection raised by OP with respect to the date of incident being 23/07/2017 and not 23/09/2017 as alleged by the complainant, the complainant has admitted it to be a typographical error in is rejoinder.  The complainant has filed the ticket which bears the date of journey as 23/07/2017. Thus, this is a valid objection raised by the OP.
16. On one hand, the complainant has alleged in his complaint that the bus halted at Fortune Grand Restaurant, near Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, whereas in para 4 of his evidence affidavit, it has been stated that the bus stops at Saharanpur after 03 hours of journey where his laptop was stolen when all the passengers including the complainant got down to answer nature’s call/availing himself of the facilities and had left the luggage containing laptop in the bag after informing the attendant.  Thus, there is discrepancy in the place of halt also. The distance between the Khatauli and Saharanpur is almost 90 Kms. The complainant himself is not sure as to where the bus had stopped; Khatauli or Saharanpur and when he had left his bag unattended. This version of complainant does not inspire confidence in absence of any documentary evidence.
17. If we look at the complaint addressed to the Post Incharge, ISBT, Police Station: Pal Nagar, District, Dehradun, with the subject:-Laptop went missing/disappeared/vanished has also been placed on record. In which the complainant has stated that his laptop was stolen when he got down at, Fortune Restaurant, Khatauli for refreshment.  Since, the said complaint is without any receiving/acknowledgment from the said Post in-charge, it cannot be relied upon. In absence of any acknowledgement we are unable to appreciate the veracity of the claim of the complainant.
18. Further, the complainant has alleged that there was a camera installed in the bus which has been denied by OP. The onus was on the complainant to show that the camera was installed in the bus and it was non-functional. No proof such as photograph has been filed in support of his allegation. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his own case, which is not so in the present case.
19. For the reasons discussed above, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost, as the complainant has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claim/ allegations of deficiency in services against OP.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.   

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya )             Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                                Member

                                            (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                                                                                      President