BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 196/2009
Date of presentation: 11.06.2009
Date of decision: 23.03.2011
Smt. Usha wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation House wife,
R/O 4, Mann House, Shankli, Shimla-171 001.
… Complainant.
Versus
1. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
H.O. Main Bus Stand, Shimla-171001.
2. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation,
Through its Regional Manager,
Solan, District Solan-173 212.
(Owner of Bus No.HP-63-2784).
3. Shri Jeet Ram, Conductor, HRTC,
Through its Regional Manager,
Solan, District Solan-173 212.
…. Opposite parties.
For the complainant: Shri Himanshu, Advocate vice
Shri Sandeep Dutta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Shri Suryadeep Thakur, Advocate.
O R D E R:
R.L. Azad (District Judge) President:- The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs. Case of the complainant is that on 19.03.2009, she along with her daughter was travelling in HRTC Solan Region, A.C. Bus No.HP-63-2784 from Chandigarh to Shimla and OP No.3- Jeet Ram was conductor on the said bus. The complainant had handed over two carry bags to the conductor Jeet Ram at Chandigarh, who put both the bags in the locker of the A.C. Bus. When the bus reached at Lakkar Bazar, the complainant asked the conductor to handover the two bags to her. The conductor handed over one bag of the complainant and tried to hand over the second bag belonging to some other passenger. The complainant declined to take custody of the second bag and she asked the complainant to give her own bag. The complainant also informed Adda Incharge H.R.T.C. Region Solan at Dhalli about loss of her second bag. The Adda Incharge assured the complainant to trace out her missing bag. On 20.03.2009, the complainant informed Police Post, Main Bus Adda Shimla about loss of her second bag. The lost bag contained the articles worth `36,662/- as detailed in para No.7 of the complaint including currency notes of `10,000/-. It is further alleged that the second bag was lost due to the negligence of the conductor of the Bus, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant sought a relief to the effect that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of `36,662/- being the actual cost of the lost articles and besides this she is also entitled for compensation of `25,000/-, damages to the tune of `26,000/- on account of mental torture & harassment and litigation costs of `14,000/-.
2. The OPs contested the complaint. The OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply has alleged that in every H.R.T.C. Bus, it is always written that the passengers are themselves responsible for their luggage, therefore, the complainant has no cause of action. They further alleged that the main facts of the complaint are related to the conductor Jeet Ram, therefore, appropriate reply to the complaint is to be filed by him. The OPs No.1 & 2 denied case of the complainant for want of knowledge and sought dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No.3 in his reply has alleged that the complaint had not handed over the two carry bags to him for keeping the same in the locker of the Bus. It is admitted that he was conductor in Bus No.HP-63-2784 of the HRTC Region Solan on 19.03.2009, but denied that the complainant had travelled in the said bus on the alleged date. It is also denied that the complainant had made any telephonic report to the Police. In nut shell the OP No.3 refuted the claim of the complainant and sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. We have heard arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the documents tendered in evidence by the parties.
4. It has been vehemently argued by the Learned Counsel for the OP No.3 that even assuming the second bag handed over to the complainant by the OP No.3 at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla was belonging to her, then who prevented her from lodging the written complaint with Adda Incharge as well as in the complaint book of the conductor, when she had visited the office of the Adda Incharge at Dhalli on the same date. There is no explanation coming forth on behalf of the complainant that when she visited the office of Adda Incharge at Dhalli, why the complaint in written was not made to him when her bag containing valuable articles was lost in the bus in question. The complainant though reported the incident to the Police Station, Sadar, Shimla on 04.05.2009, and had attempted to explain the delay by contending that the matter could not be reported promptly to the Police as she had to visit Fortis Hospital, Mohali along with her husband Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta for his treatment, who was admitted in the hospital on 22.03.2009 and was to be operated on 31.03.2009. If it is admitted to be true that she had to visit Fortis Hospital, Mohali for treatment of her husband, who as per the complainant was admitted in the said hospital on 22.03.2009, the matter could have been very easily reported to the Police on the same day itself, i.e. on 19.03.2009 and on the following day i.e. on 20.03.2009. But, instead of reporting the matter to the Police on the same day, the complainant visited the office of Adda Incharge, Dhalli that too without lodging written complaint. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the matter could not be promptly reported to the Police, is an after thought version, which by no stretch of imagination can be believed.
5. Moreover, the allegation of the complainant can not be believed on its face for the reason that the bag containing such a valuable articles and cash worth `10,000/- would kept in a carry bag and would hand over the same to the conductor. The complainant has also not filed the affidavit of her daughter Kumari Nitya and other co-passengers, who were travelling with her from Chandigarh to Shimla on 19.03.2009 to prove her case.
6. The complainant in order to prove that the bag was containing valuable articles had placed on record bills Annexure C-4 to C-8. Annexure C-4 is copy of bill dated 29.01.2009 for an amount of `1070, Annexure C-5 is bill dated 29.01.2009 for an amount of `702/- and bill Annexure C-6 is for an amount of `3140/-, whereas, Annexure C-7 is bill dated 29.01.2009 for an amount of `2800/-. Interestingly, the complainant had made purchasing from Himachal Khadi Ashram Shimla on 29.01.2009 itself against the aforesaid bills, and these bills are having different and distinct serial numbers, whereas, the purchasing was made by the complainant on 29.01.2009 itself, whose authenticity and validity creates a serious doubt in our mind regarding the genuineness of these bills. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has not been able to prove her case against the OPs thereby holding them liable for deficient in rendering service to her. Resultantly, the complaint deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 23rd day of March, 2011.
(R.L. Azad)
President.
NMehta) (Charanjit Singh)
Member.