Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs K.R.SRINIVASA

THIS appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 5.4.1991, passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga, in complaint No. C-87 of 1990 directing the opposite party to pay compensation in a sum of Rs. 525-50 with interest thereon to the Complainant. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The Complainant, on 9.10.1990, boarded the Shahapur-Bangalore bus, KSRTC Bus, at Shorapur that is, by about 8.00 p.m., and obtained tickets from Shorapur to Bangalore. The said bus on its way to Bangalore, reached Lingsugur by about 9.15 p.m. The Conductor of the bus asked the passengers to have their meals. The complainant also went to Canteen to have his meals. By the time he came out of the canteen by about 9.30 p.m., the bus had already left the bus-stand leaving the complainant in the bus-station at Lingsugur. It is the further case of the complainant that he immediately took a taxi from Lingsugur to catch the said bus wherein he had his luggage. By the time he reached Maski, the said bus had already left Maski also. So the complainant immediately reported the matter to the Police at Maski and the Police asked the Police at Shindhnoor to collect the luggage of the complainant at Shindhnoor. The complainant, therefore, went in the same taxi to Shindhnoor and in the Police station he collected his luggage. Thereafter, by taking a different bus, reached Bangalore. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation for deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party - K.S.R.T.C.

THE Opposite Party-KSRTC, filed its version and admitted the fact that bus left Shorapur around 8.00 p.m. on that day. It also admitted the stopping of bus at Lingsugur. Busstand for meals. But it averred that no passenger was left at Lingsugur. THE Opposite Party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. During inquiry, the complainant examined himself as P.W.-1 and got Ex. P-1 to P-5 marked in evidence. The Driver of the said bus was examined as R.W. 1, Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2 were marked in evidence.

The District Forum, appreciating this material placed on record by the parties, held the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party due to the negligence of the Conductor of the bus and in that view awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 525-50 to the complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It cannot be disputed that the complainant travelled in the said KSRTC bus on 9-101990 from Shorapur to Bangalore. The complainant has given his evidence and also produced tickets purchased by him, as per Ex.P-1 to P-3.

THE Complainant has averred that the said bus by about 9.15 p.m. stopped at Lingsugur bus-stand for meals. By the time, that is, by about 9.30 p.m. he came out of the Canteen, the bus had left the bus-stand, that is, the bus did not even stop for 15 minutes in the bus-stand when it had halted there for meals. This evidence of the Complainant stands virtually unrebutted by the Opposite Party. THE Opposite Party did not examine the Conductor of the bus; it also did not produce any schedule or chart showing the time schedule of halt at Lingsugur. THE District Forum, considering this material placed on record held that due to negligence of the Driver and the Conductor of the Opposite Party the bus left the bus-stand at Lingsugur without affording sufficient time for the complainant to have his meals and board. The complainant has averred in his evidence that he engaged a taxi at Lingsugur and travelled in the said taxi upto Shindhnoor and collected his luggage from the Police Station at Shindhnoor. He paid Rs. 200/- towards taxi charges. The Districts Forum Found this evidence of the complainant also worthy of credence. Having regard to all these aspects of the matter, the District Forum held deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party due to the negligence of the Driver and the Conductor of the bus and in that view awarded compensation to the complainant.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order dated 5-41991, recorded by the District Forum, Gulbarga, in Complaint No. C-87 of 1990. ORDER In the Result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.