Consumer Case No CC/128/19

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Consumer Case No. CC/128/19

         Registered on. 05/04/2019

         Decided on.    17/03/2023

                         Shri Ankush Kishor Bagwale,

                         Age – 29 yr, Occupation – Service.

                        R/o Plot No, 1,2,3, Darda Nagar,

                         Near Nikhil Provision,

                        Wadgaon Road, Dist. Yavatmal

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

   Versus

                         Divisional Controller,

                        Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,

     Amravati Depo, Amravati

     Tal.& Dist. Amravati  

   ..... Opponent

Before

                    Hon’ble Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Hemraj L. Thakur, Member

Appearances

Adv. N.G. Nathwani, For complainant

Adv. P.M. Atal, For Opponent

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 17/03/2023)

Hon’ble President Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare

1. This is a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  seeking compensation against theft of articles from Shivshahi Bus.

2. The Complainant’s case in nutshell is that :-

The complainant is resident of Yavatmal. On 6/11/2018, he had gone to Hyderabad and in that night at about 8.45 p.m., he boarded in Maharashtra State Corporation Shivshahi Travels Bus, i.e. Hyderabad to Amravati bearing registration No MH 09 EM 2262 at seat no.12. The complainant had started his journey by Shivshahi Bus by having fare of Rs.740/- and he had to arrive at Yavatmal at about 6 a.m. of 7/11/2018

3.      The   complainant’s further case is that in that bus CCTV Cameras were installed in order to monitor all the activities played inside the bus. The complainant had put his handbag in the self of the bus. The complainant was having one laptop of Acer Company worth of Rs.30,000/-, Cash of Rs.90,000/- and wrist watch worth of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith Aadhar, Pan card etc. The complainant was in the land of nod (deep sleep) and in the morning on 7/11/2018  when he reached at Yavatmal, he saw his handbag was stolen. The complainant had immediately informed to the driver and it was replied that where about of handbag could be detected from CCTV but the complainant had to come at Amravati. Then, the complainant has purchased bus ticket from Yavatmal to Amravati and he went there. It was transpied that CCTV Cameras were not in operation and there was no footage available. The complainant had registered the FIR to Amravati City Police Station. The complainant had sustained damage of Rs.1,20,000/- by loosing his hand bag. There was complete fault of opponent-Transport Company. The complainant had issued notice dated 30/11/2018 but it went in vein. Therefore, the complainant is thrown to file present complaint and he urged to grant the relief claimed.

4.      The opponent-Maharashtra State Road Transport Company (MSRTC) has resisted the claim of the complainant by filing its say below exhibit 10. It is their contention that the said theft took place in Telangana State. Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction. The said theft took place at Aadilabad, Telangana. Therefore, the complainant was directed to lodge the report at Aadilabad only. The complainant himself was negligent in handling his luggage. Therefore, the opponent is not responsible. The opponent has provided assistance to the complainant as which was required. In each of Shivshahi Bus, there is locker for the security of luggage but the compliant has not availed that locker. The opponent has not provided any deficiency in  service. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss the complainant.

5.  The complainant has filed Xerox copies of MSRTC Mobile Reservation & Ticket, FIR, Chart of Passengers, Passport of complainant, Notice given to opponent and its receipt.

6.      Opponent-Transport company has filed its reply & affidavit of evidence of its driver & conductor.

7.     Considering the arguments placed on the record as well as on perusal of the documents alongwith these pros and cons following points arise for our determination. We have recorded findings thereon with the reasons stated hereinafter.

Reasons

As to Issue no 1 to 3

8.      In the instant case, the complainant has adduced his evidence by filing affidavit at exhibit 11. On the other hand, the opponent- Travels Corporation (MSRTC) has adduced affidavit of driver Santosh Chachrkar and Conductor Kalim Ahemed Khan.

9.      At the outset, it needs to be seen that the complainant was boarded in Hyderabad-Amravati Shivshai Bus at about 8.45 of 6/11/2018 and he put his handbag in the opponent’s bus. Thereafter, the said Shivshahi Bus reached at Yavatmal on 7/11/2018 in the morning.

10.    It is pertinent to note that the complainant had travelled for near about 10 hours in that bus and then in the morning, he saw at Yavatmal that his handbag was missing. It needs to be seen that it looks very difficult to hold any responsibility to be saddled on the opponent-Transport Company (MSRTC). At first, the complainant has not used the locker of the Bus. The complainant has also not given information to the opponent’s driver or conductor, which articles were placed in his handbag. The complainant has not placed any video recording about the existence of alleged articles in the said bag. The complainant has merely stated that he was having laptop of Rs.30,000/-, Cash Rs.90,000/-, hand wrist watch worth Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has not taken any pain to submit any receipts of those articles. However, the complainant has just put figure of Rs.90,000/- in cash but for that purpose also we are unable to collect any piece of evidence.

11.    Now, let us come to the existence of CCTV footage. We find that even if the CCTV footage would have been available but that was not sufficient to conclude the responsibility of the opponent. The CCTV footage might have clarified the factum of theft but we find that when the  complainant himself put his luggage in that carrier than he was bound to take extra care. He could not leave those articles without taking its care. Therefore, in such case, existence or non existence of CCTV footage does not make any impact on the merits of the case.  

12.    It is  also relevant to mention here that the opponent- Transport Company(MSRTC) has not taken any undertaking to pay compensation against the theft of luggage. There is absolutely no rule filed by the complainant. Therefore also, we find that compensation could not be fastened  on the opponent-Transport Company (MSRTC).

13.    In Mr. Abhishek Mishra Vs. Paulo Tourist Centre, Judgment passed by Goa State Consumer Redressal Commission, dated 22/8/2017.

“It is held that the Transport Company could not be held responsible for the theft of stolen articles”.

14.    After considering all the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that though the complainant’s articles might have been stolen but the  complainant himself was negligent in taking care of those articles.

15.    The complainant has not shown those articles either to the driver or conductor of the said Shivshavi Bus. Mainly, stolen articles were only known to the complainant. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, it is very difficult to hold that such and such articles were stolen. The complainant himself was negligent in taking care of those articles. Hence, he is not liable to get any compensation. Ultimately, we hold that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. We answer all the points accordingly and proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies be provided free of costs to the parties.

Dt.  17^th   March  2023

CGM