VIJAYANAND TRAVELS Vs. RAGHU G S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN revision, challenge is to the Order dated 10.7.2006 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore partly allowing Appeal No. 497/05 against the Order dated 11.2.2005 of a District Forum and deleting award of compensation and expenses of the total amount to Rs. 50,000. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner/opposite party to pay Rs. 60,000 towards loss of goods, Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 25,000 towards expenses.

(2.) COMPLAINT was filed by Ms. Soundarya, complainant No. 1 and Ramesh, complainant No. 2. Complainant No.l died during the pendency of complaint and her legal heirs were permitted to be substituted in her place. In the complaint it was alleged that on 19.8.2001, complainant No. 2 boarded at Sagar in the bus of M/s. Vijayanand Travels, petitioner/ opposite party. Complainant No. 2 was carrying two suitcases of complainant No. 1 to be 2 handed over to her at Bangalore. Complainant No. 2 handed over the suit cases and other luggage to the authorised representative/owner of the bus. Bus left Sagar at about 10.30 p.m. and on the way it halted for coffee/tea at two places. When the bus halted at Tumkur at about 5.00 a.m. on 20.8.2001 the driver and cleaner of the bus informed the passengers that luggage cabin lock has been opened and they should check and verify their luggage. On checking, complainant No. 2 learnt that two Samsonite suitcases were missing from the luggage cabin. Driver/cleaner/owner failed to trace out the missing suitcases which belonged to complainant No. 1. Suitcases contained valuable Sarees worth Rs. 20,000, valuable dresses worth Rs. 20,000 and cash of Rs. 20,000. On complaint being lodged with police on 20.8.2001 by complainant No. 2 case FIR No. 659/01 was registered at P.S. Upparpet. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed which was contested by the petitioner.

(3.) MAIN thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Ranvir Singh for petitioner is that Ms. Soundarya was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act') and after the death of Ms. Soundarya the right to suit for damages did not survive to her L.Rs. Reliance is placed on the decision in M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira, (1988) 1 SCC 557. Definition of consumer as given in Section 2(i)(d) of the Act is in two parts. The later part which is relevant, runs as under: