Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman, President;
Tmt. R. Vanaroja & Thiru Pon. Gunasekaran, Members
A. MARIMUTHU & ORS.—Complainants
versus
THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 49 of 1998—Decided on 16.3.2005
returning home travelled by bus - Loss of Luggage consisting of articles like
T.V. Set, Video Cassettes, Audio Cassettes, pain balms, cooking set, sarees, pant bits, shirt bits, towels etc. - Complainant claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as value of goods and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation alleging negligence on part of opposite party - Appellant admitted receipt of payment for carrying luggage - Opposite party acted negligently and there was deficiency in service on account of which loss has been caused - Opposite party directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
Held: We are satisfied that the opposite parties have acted negligently and that there is also deficiency in service on account of which the complainants lost articles of the value of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Though it is not argued by the Counsel for the opposite parties, it may be out of curiosity stated that nobody in their
right senses would allow their jewellery to be carried in a luggage and the normal conduct of a person is only to be carry them in their person. Perhaps, it may be so. But, here what we find is that the
complainants have returned to India from Sultanate of Oman on 26.10.1997. On the very same day, they had booked tickets for their journey from Chennai to Karaikkudi. Only Marimuthu and Veerasekaran came from Sultanate of Oman while Sevugan joined them at Chennai. Sevugan had purchased the ticket in advance on 25th for travel by 26th night. They left Chennai by the bus operated by the 1st opposite party. We have no record to show that when the flight from the Sultanate of Oman landed at Chennai. Therefore, considering the fact that the complainants left Chennai on the very same day of arrival from Sultanate of Oman, it is not strange that they have packed all their things including jewels into a luggage. They may not have had any time to reopen the parcel at Chennai and separate the jewels so as to carry them in person. Considering the background of facts which we have mentioned above, it would be obvious that there is nothing odd about the same. Further, the complainants have given the value of the articles kept in the parcel. They have also mentioned that they brought 45 sovereigns of gold jewellery. This has not been replied to by the opposite parties. In the complaint given to the police, they have mentioned it giving the details of items. The bills produced by them also prove the purchase of those items. Therefore, nothing much turns upon this peculiar aspect of the case.(Para 7)
Now, coming to the damages, it follows that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainants for the loss of articles lost in transit namely the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The complainants have claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, loss, mental agony, etc. There is deficiency in service. The complainants had to get down at Thozhudur. They lost valuable articles they have brought all the way from Sultanate of Oman. They were not properly directed by the opposite parties as to what step they should take or what is the step the opposite parties have taken to trace them out, at least, with a view to reassure the complainants. Therefore, the complainants would have been definitely put to a lot of mental agony. Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of the case, we would hold that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would adequately meet the ends of justice if awarded as compensation towards deficiency in service and mental agony. Therefore, in fine, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainants.(Para 8)
Facts of the case :
1.Complaint about loss of goods while travelling in bus.
2.Goods consisted of T.V. set, Video Cassettes, Audio Cassettes, Jewellery and other costly items.
3.Loss of goods caused in transit.
4.Complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards cost of goods and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.
5.Forum held that loss had been caused due to negligence of opposite party.
6.Opposite party also held to be deficient in service.
7.Complaint allowed.
8.Opposite party directed to pay to complainant compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Result : Complaint allowed with costs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of goods on account of negligence of opposite party.
Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The complainants who are three in number travelled by the bus run by the opposite party from Chennai to Karaikkudi on 26.10.1997. The complainants who were working in Sultanate of Oman were returning home. They carried a luggage weighing about 140 kgs., which consisted of articles like T.V. set, Video cassettes, audio cassettes, pain balms, cooking set, sarees, pant bits, shirt bits, T. shirts, children dresses, jewels, gold sovereigns, watches, electrical iron box, etc., with them which according to the complainants represent the hard earnings of the complainant and the value of which is given at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The luggage weighing 140 kgs., were loaded on the top of the bus and secured with ropes. The complainant, when the bus stopped at Vikravandi, mounted the top of the bus and found the luggage intact. But, when the bus reached at Thozhudur and stopped at Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Service Station for filling up of diesel, the driver informed the complainants that the luggage were not found and were missing. According to the complainants, the opposite parties did not take any serious steps to trace out the luggage. They did not immediately inform the police nor their superiors but only were assuring the complainants that the parcel could be returned to them. They left them at Thozhudur to wait for the luggage and went away. The complainants on account of the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties was thus put to a loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the value of the goods lost. They also mentally suffered for which they claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. In the version filed by the opposite parties, they admit that the complainants boarded at Chennai on 26.10.1997 to go to Karaikkudi and they brought a big luggage which could not be accommodated either inside the bus or in the boot of the bus and, therefore, it was kept on the top of the bus. When the bus reached Villuppuram, the complainants themselves checked the parcel. But when the bus reached Thozhudur, it was found that the luggage kept on top were missing and the Assistant Engineer of Thozhudur was informed of the same. In the meanwhile, the State Express Transport Corporation bus bound for Trivandrum stated that they saw a parcel slipping down from the bus near Veppur and that it was picked up by a transport people. Therefore, the opposite parties took steps to contact the people at Ulundurpet, Villuppuram, Tindivanam and Chennai and informed about the missing luggage and to send it to Thozhudur. According to the opposite parties, the bus waited at Thozhudur for 3 hours and in the meanwhile the Assistant Engineer requested the passenger to accompany them to give a police complaint which was refused by the complainants. On account of this, the bus reached Karaikkudi late by 3 hours. There is no deficiency in service. The bus is meant for carrying passengers. It is not a transport carrier. If a person takes luggage, he does it so at his risk. The Transport Corporation is not liable for the loss of the luggage. Thus, the opposite parties are not liable.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
(1) whether there is deficiency in service? and
(2) f so, to what compensation, the complainants are entitled to.
4. Points : As the case of the complainants is admitted practically, it is not necessary to delve at length on the facts. The complainants who were working as Kalasis in Sultanate of Oman returned back to India. They boarded the bus namely operated by the 1st opposite party to travel from Chennai to Karaikkudi on 26.10.1997 at about 10.15 p.m. They carried a big luggage or parcel for which the complainants paid the necessary charges which is evidenced by Exs. B2 to B6. The luggage because of its size could not be accommodated inside the bus or in the boot of the bus. Therefore, it was kept on the top of the bus and tied with ropes. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the luggage wa
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
