RSRTC vs RAJESH KUMAR PANDA

THE case of the respondent complainant against the appellant was that on 7.8.1994 he and his wife, who was carrying advanced pregnancy, were travelling in the bus being plied by the appellant on Hindaun City to Jaipur route, and that they had boarded the bus at about 3 p.m. on 7.8.1994. When the bus reached about 2 kms. ahead of Dausa it broke down. That it took about 2 hours to the appellant to arrange for another bus, through which the respondent and his wife travelled with great physical discomfort from Dausa to Jaipur. THE respondent accordingly claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation for physical discomfort, Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of medicines besides refund of Rs. 30 which were allegedly charged by the conductor of another bus from them. THE case put forth by the appellant in its reply was that since the tyre had punctured, it had to be repaired on the way and after getting the other tyre replaced in the wheel, all the passengers were brought to Jaipur. It was further submitted that the break down of the bus was beyond the control of the appellant and thus the appellants were not at fault. THE D.F. however held that the appellant had rendered deficient services to the respondent and, therefore, required the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and to refund the fare charge by the appellant from them for journey from Dausa to Jaipur. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

IT was vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the break down of the bus on its way to Jaipur was beyond the control of the appellant and since after getting the tyre repaired/replaced the passengers of the bus were duly carried to Jaipur, the appellant cannot be held to have rendered any deficient services to the respondent. The learned Counsel referred to the affidavits Shri J.N. Sharma, OIC, Raman Lal Sharma, the driver of the bus concerned and Shri Babulal Jangid, conductor of the bus. The photostat copy of the waybill wherein reference is made for travel of the passengers of one bus to the other, in the event of failure of the former bus on its route is maintained, has also been filed. We find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It can hardly be denied that a bus carrying passengers may break down on its way to its destination. It may be beyond the control of the bus driver. Under such circumstances the appellant cannot be held guilty of rendering deficient services to the passengers. In the present case it stands proved from the sworn testimony of the bus driver and the conductor that they had got the bus repaired when it had broke down. Some time would have naturally be consumed in getting the damaged tyre repaired. Such delay cannot be regarded as amounting to rendering deficient services by the appellant to the respondent.

The respondent, on his part, appears to have produced the two tickets which, according to his version, he had to purchase for travelling in another bus. Such tickets do not mention either the number of the bus or the date of their issue. No reliance can be placed on such evidence.

IN view of the above the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with costs on parties. Appeal allowed.