PRABHAT NALINI DEVI Vs. RASHMI TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in this case has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,92,690/- for deficiency in service and consequently for damages suffered by her.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that she was travelling in a bus, bearing Registration No. OIU-75, belonging to the opposite party from Cuttack to Sundargarh on 18th May, 1992 along with her children. She was allotted seat No.28 whereas her children were allotted nearby seats i. e. seat Nos.23, 26 and 27. Her case is that she lives at Sundargarh and had come to Bhubaneswar to attend a marriage ceremony held on 28.4.1992. After the ceremony was over she was returning back to Sundargarh on the aforementioned date. Since she had come to attend a marriage ceremony she had taken with her valuable sarees and ornaments and had kept the same in a V. I. P. Suit-case, which she was carrying in the bus. She had initially kept the VIP Suit-case by the side of her seat on the gang-way. But the staff of the bus insisted on keeping the Suit-case on the roof top of the bus assuring her that it would be absolutely safe. According to her, the bus stopped at Khuntuni and Angul where the complainant out of anxiety repeatedly requested the conductor to climb up to the roof top and ensure about the safety of the VIP Suit-case in question. Though, to her knowledge, the conductor did not climb up to the roof top, he assured the complainant that her Suitcase is quite safe and secured and there was nothing for her to sorry about it. The bus reached Sundargarh at about 6 a. m. on the next day and to her utter surprise the Suit-case was reported to be missing. The staff of the bus took the plea that it might have slipped off from the roof top of the bus during journey asserting that it was kept there along with other luggages of the passengers. The complainant had lodged a written F. I. R. soon thereafter at the Town Police Station, Sundargarh and the staff of the bus admitted before the Police authority that the V. I. P. Suit-case in question was kept by the complainant inside the bus by the side of her seat which they had carried and kept over the roof top of the bus. She also submitted a written complaint on 15.5.1992 to the opposite party complaining about the loss of the Suit-case indicating the contents thereof. But the opposite party's attitude was indifferent. She thereafter brought her grievance to the notice of the Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority. It is further alleged that in response to the above, the Assistant Secretary, S. T. A. had noticed both parties to appear before the Secretary, S. T. A. in compliance to which the proprietor of the bus appeared on 1.7.1992 and admitted about the removal of the Suit-case from inside the bus to be kept on the roof top which eventually was lost during the journey. According to her, the opposite party is responsible for the loss the V. I. P. Suit-case as the same occurred during the course of the journey when the Suit-case was taken custody of by the staff of the bus. She seems to have suffered mental agony apart from the valuable articles kept in the Suit-case, a list of which has been given in the application. The articles comprised of gold ornaments some fitted with valuable stones, like, Ruby, Pearl, Diamond etc. and also sarees and dresses total of valuation of which has been given as Rs.1,42,690/-. She has assessed her physical and mental suffering at Rs.50,000/-, thus making a total claim of Rs.1,92,690/-.

(3.) The opposite party has filed a counter denying the relevant allegation of the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that if any passenger carries any luggage with him, the same are carried on the bus by issuing separate tickets for the luggages in which event such luggages are to be on the roof top of the bus securely tied by rope. Those luggages are handed over to the passengers at their respective destinations after verification of the luggage tickets. The small articles which the passengers carry with themselves, they carry at their own risk and rack has been provided inside the bus for the purpose. Their further plea is that under no circumstances the staff of the bus under-take any responsibility for safe custody, of the articles which the passengers carry without obtaining luggage tickets as they are supposed to carry the same at their own risk. It has been asserted in the counter filed by the opposite party that for the luggage carried by a passenger without obtaining a luggage ticket therefor, the passenger cannot claim compensation for the loss of the luggage as he has not paid for its carriage and the opposite party has, therefore, no responsibility assuming that the complainant had lost her Suit-case. All other allegations of the complainant has been denied in the counter including the alleged loss of the Suit-case. It has, therefore, been stated that the opposite party came to learn about the lodging of one F. LR. at Town Police Station, Sundargarh and the police during its investigation held up the cleaner of the bus at Sundargarh and Angul Police Station suspecting him to be the author of the crime. The opposite party has denied its liability for the loss of the Suit-case.