O R D E R Bindhu M.Thomas, Member. Petitioner's case is as follows: The petitioner who is conducting a ration shop, travelled by 'Marygiri' bus bearing No.KL-5/B 7137 on 17.10.2005 at 2.40 pm for his journey to Chengalam. Petitioner alleges that he gave Rs.12/- as bus fare and he is having the right to alight at Chengalam.Petitioner states that on reaching the place 'Aruvikuzhy' one Varadarajan Nair sitting near him who was under the influence of alcohol complained to the first opposite party, the conductor of the bus that he lost Rs.1000/- . The first opposite party asked the petitioner regarding the loss and directed him to the police station along with Varadarajan Nair . The petitioner hesitated to the abovesaid demand but due to the first opposite party's instigation, he went to the police station. The Sub-Inspector of Police was convinced by the petitioner's submission and the body search conducted by him and permitted the petitioner to go. The petitioner alleges that due to the above narrated incident he lost Rs.100/- as taxi fare and could not open his ration retail shop on 17.10.05 and thus lost the income from the business to the tune of Rs.5000/-. According -2- to the petitioner the act of first opposite party is clear deficiency in service and he prays for a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that Varadarajan Nair who is a necessary party to the case is not impleaded and therefore the case is to be dismissed. The opposite parties averred that the first opposite party asked all the passengers in the bus about the lost sum of money. The first opposite party further contented that being the conductor of the bus he was duty bound to take all the passengers to the destination. So the first opposite party in order to avoid inconvenience to other passengers directed the petitioner and Varadarajan Nair to the police station and continued the bus service. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of complaint. Points to be decided are: (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. (ii) reliefs and cost. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by petitioner and opposite party. Documents from the side of petitioner are marked as exhibited A1 and A2 . Point No.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner boarded the opposite party's bus by name 'Marygiri' on 17.10.2005. The bus ticket of Marygiri bus is marked as exhibit A1. According to the petitioner the total bus fair of Rs.12/- for the Kottayam Chengalam route was paid to the first opposite party and therefore he was having the right to travel up to Chengalam. The petitioner alleges that the first opposite party believed the complaint made by one passenger Mr.Varadarajan Nair regarding the loss of Rs.1000/- and suspected the petitioner and asked him with regard to the loss. It is contented by the first opposite party that he asked all the passengers in the bus about the sum claimed to have lost from Varadarajan Nair. The first opposite party -3- further contented that it is not he who suspected the petitioner but Varadarajan Nair who sat beside the petitioner. According to opposite parties Varadarajan Nair who was the real cause for the whole incident is not impleaded in the case and therefore the case is to be dismissed for non jointer of necessary parties. The first opposite party averres that as he was duty bound to take all the passengers to the destination he directed the petitioner and Varadarajan Nair to the police station and continued the operation of the bus. In this instant case the petitioner had hired the service of the opposite parties for consideration. So he is a consumer of the opposite parties not a consumer of Varadarajan Nair. Just like other passengers the petitioner also availed the service of opposite parties by paying a consideration of Rs.12/-. So the opposite parties were duty bound to the petitioner also. The fact remains that as the petitioner had boarded at Kottayam in the opposite party's bus, it was the duty of the opposite party to take the petitioner upto the place of destination. There was no evidence to prove that the allegation made by the co-passenger about the loss of 1000/- rupees was true or false. Anyway as one passenger made an allegation as above mentioned, the opposite parties should have taken all the passengers in the bus to the police station. But here in this case the opposite parties unilaterly took law in their hands and directed only two passengers, that is Varadarajan Nair and the petitioner to the police station. The petitioner was of status and suffered mental anguish, harassment, loss of reputation and business. Otherwise the petitioner should not have unnecessarily bothered himself at the cost of his time energy and money to have filed such a complaint against the opposite party. So taking into consideration all the circumstances, we are of the view that on account of personal mistake of the conductor and driver clear cut deficiency in service had occurred. The above mentioned action of the bus conductor had caused the following things. (i) The petitioner suffered a great deal of shock, mental agony, injury to his reputation in the society, business loss, harassment and inconvenience. (ii) The petitioner was not taken to his ultimate destination. -4- (iii) If the allegation of loss of Rs.1000/- was true, original thief was not caught. As the driver and conductor of the bus did not accede to the request of the petitioner for going to Chengalam is held guilty of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point No.1 the petition is ordered as follows:- Opposite parties will pay Rs.2000 as compensation and Rs.1000 as cost to the petitioner/Order will be complied with within 45 days from its receipt.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
