2007 (3) CPR 1
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member; Smt. S.P. Lale, Member
Kokan Travels (Konkan)—Appellant
versus
Smt. Reshma Ramakant Naik—Respondent
First Appeal No. 1687 of 2002
Decided on 5-6-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of reply to complainant’s notice by respondent means whatever is mentioned in the notice is accepted in toto by the respondent.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g)(o), 11 and 15—Deficiency in service—Transport—Loss of baggage during bus journey—Jurisdiction—When passengers had boarded bus at Thane in the appellant’s bus, it is duty of appellant to give delivery of baggage to passengers at the place of their destination—If baggage is not delivered at the place of destination, there is deficiency in service right from Thane to ultimate destination of passenger—Cause of action commences at Thane and continues right upto destination of passenger. (Para 7)

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 —Sections 2(1) (g) (o) and 15 — Deficiency in service—Transport — Loss of baggage during bus journey — Proof of — Non-production of receipt — Effect—Complainant’s baggage handed over at the commencement of journey not returned at destination—No receipt was produced on record to show that complainant had put gunny bag in the dicky of bus—Appellant has not examined cleaner of bus to repudiate claim of complainant—It is also required to be established that receipts were being issued when passengers deposited their baggage in dicky. (Paras 8 and 9)

       Facts of the Case :

       (A)Aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum (DCF) Thane in CC No. 208/2000 whereby DCF has directed appellant/OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- plus Rs. 5000/- and also Rs. 850/-, original OPs have filed this appeal.

       (B)Complainant alongwith her minor son had booked 2 bus tickets with appellant for going from Thane to Karwar. She boarded bus at Thane. She had taken with her some baggage worth Rs. 68,250/-. It was put in a gunny bag. The said gunny bag was kept in the dicky of the bus. The same was not returned to her at Karwar. She contacted appellant and also made written complaint. Despite this, her baggage was not returned nor any reply was made to her complaint. Ultimately, she filed consumer complaint in the forum below.

       (C)OP filed W.S. denying deficiency in service, OP claimed that complainant had not produced any receipt to show that she had given gunny bag to cleaner of bus OP also pleaded that Thane District Consumer Forum had no juris-diction to entertain and try the complaint.

       (D)On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record by rival parties, Ld. DCF found that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant and passed the impugned order.

       (E)Hence this appeal.

       (F)Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that DCF Thane had no jurisdiction as complainant had boarded bus at Mulund Check Naka within the jurisdiction of Mumbai and not at Thane. Further contention of counsel for appellant was that no receipt has been produced to show that complainant had deposited gunny bag containing valuable articles in the dicky. Another contention of appellant is that baggage might have been lost in somewhere in State of Karnataka as bus was going from Mumbai to Karwar.

       (G)Findings of the Court :

       (i)Complainant is a resident of Thane. She along with her child with a heavy baggage would not come to Mumbai to the side of Mulund Check Naka to board the bus particularly when bus was going through Thane from Mumbai to Karwar. She must have boarded bus at Thane. Therefore, Thane DCF had jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

       (ii)It is not known whether baggage was lost in Karnataka or in Maharashtra. The fact remains that when passengers had boarded at Thane in the appellant’s bus, it was duty of appellant to give delivery of baggage to passengers at the place of destination. Cause of action commenced from Thane and it continued right upto place of destination.

       (iii)In the absence of affidavit of cleaner of bus who was on duty, it is not possible to give finding in favour of appellant. It is also required to be established that there was a system of issuing receipts for baggage deposited by passengers.

       (iv)No reply was given to appellant to complainant’s notice. Absence of reply means whatever is mentioned by complainant in the notice is accepted by appellant in toto.

       Order passed by Forum below is unsustainable in law.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.