1. As per complaint the complainant traveled through Sammi Daewoo Bus Service from Fasialabad to Multan on 06.8.2009 by purchasing ticket in his name. Seat No. 35 was allotted to him. Serial No. of ticket was 881468. The complainant purchased the ticket in consideration of Rs. 430/- During journey one passenger Muhammad Yaseen asked the driver to stop the bus due to natural call and the driver stopped the bus at 17-MORR in open area. The above said Muhammad Yaseen left the bus and there after the complainant checked his hand bag and found that his both mobile phone sets were missing. The complainant raised hue and cry but the staff of the bus did not try to chase the accused. Meanwhile the mobile police came there and the complainant lodged his complaint verbally. The mobile police chased and arrested accused, the above said Muhammad Yaseen, and FIR No. 200/2009 dated 07.8.2009 was chalked out under section 411 of PPC with PS Khanewal Kohnna. The police officials informed the complainant about recovery of the mobile set on which the complainant got these mobile phones on 'supurdari'. The complainant faced mental torture due to negligence of the respondents. The complainant has demanded Rs. 5 lac as compensation, he has also claimed Rs. 7500/- which he has spent for legal proceedings to get the mobile on 'supurdari'. The complainant sent legal notice to the respondents which is mark C and mark D, postal receipt which are mark E and mark F, the original ticket is mark A, attested copy of FIR is mark B.
2. The respondents appeared in the court and submitted their written reply in which respondents have admitted the travel of the complainant from Fasialabed to Multan through the respondent bus service. The respondents have also admitted about stopping the bus without the scheduled stop. They have also admitted the theft of the mobile set of the complainant by the accused Muhammad Yaseen and pendency of legal criminal proceedings against him. To prove his contention the petitioner appeared as PW1 to produce his affidavit EXP-1. During cross examination, the complainant stated that he purchased advance ticket from the respondents on 06.8.2009 for one and half hour before the departure of Daewoo Bus. The seat number of accused was either 34 or 36. The name of the accused is Muhammad Yaseen. He stated that he did not know where the accused Muhammad Yaseen asked driver to stop the bus as he had to go to washroom, because he was sleeping at that time. He woke up when the bus used breaks to stop it. He did not know how much time the bus stopped there as he was sleeping. He told the driver of the bus that his mobile had been lost on which the driver of the bus told him that one person went down for natural call on the previous stop. The driver stopped the bus immediately and informed motorway police about occurance. He stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the culprit was arrested with efforts of Daewoo staff. He has received both of his mobile on 'supurdari' He orally informed the Daewoo staff at Multan Terminal about incident but they behaved roughly. He has spent about Rs. 7000/- / Rs.
3. 8000/- to fallow the criminal case. Motorway police informed him about the arresting of culprit. In evidence of the respondent Mr. Ghulam Mustafa bus driver produced his affidavit which is EXR-1.
4. During cross examination RW1 has stated that there is only one stop during journey from Fasialabad to Multan at Jhang. He was driving the bus No. LXC, 6001 on the fait full day. One of the passengers asked him two times to stop the bus, second time he stopped it. He has admitted that as per company policy they could not stop the bus without sanctioned stop. However in case of emergency to any passenger in shape of washroom, the bus can be stopped at any place. He has admitted that on the asking of the passenger, he stopped bus 2/3 Km away from Khanewal towards Multan at petrol pump. The passenger who went to washroom, did not come back in the bus. The bus stopped for fifteen minutes. On hearing the theft of mobile of one passenger he turned his bus back to petrol pump, where he had stopped the bus. The matter was brought in the notice of motorway police who told that they had caught the thief. He has denied that he stopped the bus in violation of company policy. After completion of the evidence of the parties, learned counsel for the parties argued the case.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. The contention of the complainant is that the bus driver stopped the bus without sanctioned stop.
7. Therefore he is responsible for occurance which happened in case of theft of mobile of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out to the terms and conditions of ticket mark A. According to condition No. 8, bus will depart strictly at scheduled departure time and will stay only at company authorized stopover. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that driver violated terms and conditions of the respondents. Therefore respondents are responsible for occurance which happened during the journey and due to which the complainant faced mantel torture. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out to condition No. 7 of mark A, according to which, company is not responsible for any loss / damages to the hand luggage. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that his theft was committed from hand bags / carry bag therefore respondents are not responsible for any compensation or damages.
8. I have gone through the record. RW1 deriver of the bus has stated that bus can be stopped without authorized stop in case of emergency to any passenger about washroom etc. However in this regard nothing has been produced through which it could be assessed that the driver was allowed by the respondents to stop the bus without any authorized stop for the purpose of using washroom.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced EXR-2 which is trip detail report, according to which one Muhammad Yaseen travelled on 06.8.2009 and is seat number was 34. It is hard fact that if the bus had not stopped at unauthorized stop then occurance of lifting of mobile of the complainant could not have happened, which means due to violation of terms and conditions prescribed by the respondents were violated by the driver of the bus. It is also hard fact that due to criminal proceedings the complainant got his mobile set on 'supurdari' The complainant has demanded Rs. 7500/- for obtaining mobile set on 'supurdari' Therefore the petition in hand is hereby accepted with costs and respondents are directed to pay to the complainant expenses of Rs. 7500/- and they will also pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.