State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, Mahendra Travels vs K.Giri Babu on 22 July, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/13/118
Instituted on 08.02.13
Manager, Mahendra Travels,
New Bus Stand Road, Jagdalpur
BASTAR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
K.Giri Babu, S/o: Shri K.Jagmayya,
R/o: Shyam Nagar, Ward No.26,
Camp-2, Bhilai,
Tah.& Dist. DURG (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri K.K. Sharma, for appellant.
Shri Sohan Lal Chandravanshi, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated: 22/ 07/2013 PER: - HON'BLE SMT.VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal is directed against order dated 10.01.2013 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as "District Forum") in complaint case no.78/2012, whereby complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service against the OP was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated Facts of the case, as per averment of the complaint are that the complainant undertaking journey on 08.11.2011 from Jagdalpur to Bhilai Power House in the bus of OP bearing No. CG // 2 // 04/E/4731. At Jagdalpur he was asked by the Conductor not to keep the luggage inside the bus and asked him to keep his bag in the dicky. But as his bag contained cloths, a gold necklace, silver 'payal' worth Rs.70,000/- the complainant did not want to keep it in dickey of the bus but the conductor insisted and assured of safety of the bag so the complainant kept his bag in the dickey. It was averred in the complaint that he had kept clothe, gold necklace and silver payal in the bag at Jagdalpur in presence of his brother-in-law (Jija) Shri Venkat Rao. When the complainant got down at his destination he found his bag to be missing. The Conductor apologetically requested him not to report the matter to either his master or police and assured that he would soon locate it. Later he reported the matter to police. He also requested the OP to compensate him for loss suffered due to loss of bag but he refused hence complaint was filed before District Forum seeking direction to OP for payment of Rs.70,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses.
3. OP remained ex-parte before the District Forum despite service of notice. Learned District forum having considered the material on record allowed the complaint. Aggrieved OP has preferred appeal under consideration.
// 3 //
4. We have perused the documents on record and heard arguments of parties.
5. Contention of the appellant is that learned District Forum has not taken due care while deciding the case ex-parte. The complaint was false and the complainant had failed to prove his case yet District Forum allowed the complaint. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that District Forum, Durg had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that though the complainant had alleged that he did not find the bag when he got down at Durg yet no report was made to Durg police. After 40 days from the date of incident, report was made to Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the complainant did not make conductor of the bus a party in the complaint case. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that on the ticket itself 'No Risk of Luggage' has been printed which means that the OP shall not be liable for any loss to the luggage. Learned counsel also submitted that there are discrepancies in the pleading and affidavit produced by the complainant but the District Forum failed to note the same. He prayed for dismissal of the false complaint imposing cost of Rs.25,000/-.
// 4 //
6. Learned counsel for respondent reiterated the stand taken by the complainant before District Forum and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
7. First objection taken by learned counsel for appellant is regarding jurisdiction of District Forum, Durg. Such objection is not tenable in view of the fact that admittedly the complainant had purchased ticket for travelling from Jagdalpur to Bhilai Power House which falls in Durg District. As in Durg district it was found that the bag was missing, cause of action for filing complaint had arisen at Durg and as such, District Forum Durg had territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint. So the objection taken by the appellant OP is hereby overruled.
8. Next contention of the appellant/OP is that the complaint was false. We find that Respondent/complainant in his complaint as well as affidavit dated 17.02.2012 had alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The version of the complainant is also supported by affidavits of other witnesses namely D. Venkat Rao, Dileshwari Devi and Smt. R. Mohini and their statements were not controverted by the OP as it preferred to remain ex parte despite service of notice. We find that there was deficiency in service by the OP as the bag of the // 5 // complainant was lost from the dickey due to proper care not being taken by the staff on board the bus.
9. So far as the quantum of loss to complainant is concerned we have noted that the incident was dated 8.11.2011 and there is no evidence to show that the complainant had lodged any complaint with the OP to look into his grievance and further that instead of filing FIR with Police immediately after the incident, he lodged complaint with the Supt. Of Police Raipur on 16.12.2011 after 40 days of the incident. If the respondent/complainant had really sustained heavy loss then he would have filed FIR with police immediately after the incident as is expected from a reasonable man. His act of filing complaint after 40 days appears to be by way of an afterthought. We also find that the bills of valuables produced by him do not establish connection with the complainant because said bills are in the name of Smt. Laxmi whose relation with complainant has not been disclosed nor her affidavit has been filed. So we find that the complainant could not establish financial loss claimed by him.
10. As we have found the allegation of deficiency in service to be proved because there was loss of bag of the complainant from the dickey of the bus but we find the compensation awarded by the District Forum to be excessive because as observed in preceding // 6 // paragraph, the complainant has not proved the loss of valuables. Hence the order of the District Forum deserves to be modified. The appeal partly allowed. The impugned order passed by Learned District Forum is set aside and it is directed that the appellant/ OP will pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order along with total cost of proceedings quantified as Rs.3,000/-. If the order is not complied within the stipulated period interest @ 9% p.a. shall also be payable.
(Smt. VeenaMisra) (Ms.HeenaThakkar)
Presiding Member Member
/07/2013 /07/2013