A.K.ANNAMALAI J. - (1.) The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party for the relief of claiming Rs.6,100/- towards the value of missed articles and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical pain and for Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
(3.) The details of the complaint in brief are as follows :- On 15.8.2003 at about 4.15 a.m., the complainant boarded in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing No.TN-23-1333 at Madras Koyambedu bus stand with his friend A.Raja after having paid the charges Rs.65/- each for the ticket for a journey form Koyambedu to Tiruppathur. At about 6.15 a.m. at distance of about 70 k.m from Madras, one of the rear tyres of the bus got flattened and the bus could not proceed further. All passengers about 80 in numbers were made to get down from the bus. It was then inform by the driver and conductor of the bus that there was no spare tyre (Stepney) in the bus. Therefore the driver took away the empty bus, for getting the tyre to proper condition. The fact that such a long distance Government Transport bus should be allowed to ply on the road with passengers if in case this mishap should occur at night time, the plight of the passenger could be imagined. Many passengers, including the complainants demanded return of the bus fare they paid. But the conductor flatly refused, moreover the conductor was unable to do any alternate arrangements. Thereafter the conductor of the bus Tr.Rajasekaran Batch No.9428 stopped another bus with Reg.No.TN-23-1250 at about 8.30 a.m and the passengers boarded therein. The said bus was already loaded full with passengers. The complainant who is 73 years old with his baggages was subjected to untold misery, which would be unforgettable from him, through out his remaining years of life. In the bustle and hurry, consequent upon the above circumstances, the complainant left his bag in the bus, when he got down from the said bus at Rajakulam at about 8.30 a.m. The articles in the said bag worth about Rs.6,100/- worth. The loss sustained by the complainant is due to the negligence and the careless manner in which the said bus was allowed to run by the authorities concerned. He got down from the bus of Rajakulam, having missed his bag in the said bus, bearing No.TN-23-1250 and went to Kanchipuram, Vellore and some other places, spending from his own pocket, in the hope of sighting the above said bus, so that the complainant might recover his lost bag, but it was all in vain. He could not prefer a complaint to the police, owing to paucity of fund and time. The complainant could not at all meet Thiru.Rajasekaran, conductor of the bus, TN-23-1333 or the driver of the said bus. He was subjected to physical pain, mental agony and loss of money. This was principally due to the bus let on the road, without spare tyre (Stepney). Hence the opposite party are to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.6100/- towards the value of the missed articles, and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and physical sufferings and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards the costs of this proceedings. 3. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in the written statement by stating that it is true on 15.8.2003 the bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-1333 was proceeding from Chennai to Tirupathur. When nearing Rajakulam, the rear tyre of the bus punctured and was stopped due to break-down. The conductor of the bus informed to the passengers that, it will take 10 to 15 minutes for change of stepney tyre and the majority passengers had been convinced. Some of the passengers provoked and started quarreling with the conductor of the bus, demanding return of ticket fare. The conductor of the bus, also arranged for another bus immediately, for the patientless passenger like the complainant and the complainant also with his bag and luggage, boarded in another bus. It is not true to say that there was no spare tyre available in the bus. Due to the impatience of the complainant, he boarded in another bus, but which was arranged by the conductor. The passengers should take care of their luggage and property. The opposite partys corporation will not be liable or responsible, for the negligence and carelessness of the passengers. There is possibility of theft of the property of the passengers, by other passengers. There is possibility of theft of the property of the passengers, by other passengers. The theory of the complainant, even if admitted as true, he could have lodged an FIR, before the concerned police and without doing so, the complainant has come forward with unjust claim, before the Forum. The complainant has not left any articles in the bus of the opposite party herein. The corporation is not at all responsible for the articles of the passengers, for the negligence and carelessness. The conductor of the opposite party has promptly arranged for another bus immediately to the complainant. The claim of the complainant is not at all justifiable. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.;