Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/23/2011

Pooja Agencies, Kosgi, represented by its Proprietor - Complainant(s)

Versus

. The ANL Parcel & Courier Services, and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri G. Vikramdev

29 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 29^th day of July, 2011 

                                                         Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                         Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

              Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

                                                                                                 C.C.NO. 23  Of   2011

Between:-

Pooja Agencies, Kosgi, represented by its Proprietor, Anantha Chandra Prakash S/o Anantha Kistaiah, aged 38 years, R/o H.No.20-40/1, Kosgi town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                             … Complainant

And

1. The ANL Parcel & Courier Services, Head Officer, Basheerbagh,             

    H.No.5-9-30/1/5/B, Road No.4, Palace Colony, Basheer Bagh,  

    Hyderabad, through its Senior Vice President. 

 

2. Malla Reddy, ANL Area Manager, C/o K. Krishna Murthy, ANL Parcel &  

    Courier Services, Kosgi Branch, C/o APSRTC Bus Stand, Kosgi town and  

    Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 

   … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 20-7-2011 in the presence of Sri G. Vikramdev, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri Anantha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

                                                                                                        O R D E R

  (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.16,700/- towards the value of lost consignment, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for damages and also costs of the complaint.   

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant has been doing business in pesticides and seeds at Kosgi and used to transmit the goods of his shop to the purchasers and retailers through the opposite parties on payment of fixed hire charges. The OP-1 doing business in transport in the name and style as ANL Parcel and Courier Services and the OP-2 is the employee carrying on the business of OP-1 at Kosgi branch. On 24-11-2009 the complainant has sent a consignment of pesticides worth of Rs.16,700/- for delivery to M/s Vasudeva Traders, Amangal, Mahabubnagar District through OP-2 through the receipt No.CC Note No./AWB No.MBN 6399036 dated 24-11-2009 on payment of the fixed hire charges.  While the matter stood thus, as the consignment not reached to its destination, he enquired OP-2 in respect of delivery, that the complainant has also addressed letters to the opposite parties on 15-12-2009 and also on 13-2-2010 informing about loss of his consignment and requesting to cause delivery of the consignment to its destination or refund the value of the consignment. But the opposite parties failed to cause the delivery of the consignment. Being unsatisfied with the false assurance on 4-10-2010 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties.  The said notice was served on the opposite parties.  The OP-1 has sent a reply stating that he was being examining the matter and action could be taken.  Thereafter the opposite parties remained silent, neither taken steps for delivery of lost consignment nor refunded the value of the same with damages and compensation. The facts and circumstances submitted above shows that due to negligence, unfair trade practice and deficit services on the part of the opposite parties the complainant sustained loss of Rs.16,700/-.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite parties filed their counter admitting that the complainant booked a courier consignment through the opposite parties’ office at Kosgi for delivery at Amangal. The said consignment dispatched from Kosgi to Amangal but the same was lost in transit due to the circumstances beyond the control of these opposite parties.  However, they tried their level best to trace out the same but their efforts went in vain.  They further stated that they were not aware of the contents of the consignment since it was booked and transported in a packed and sealed condition since it is common practice that the opposite parties could not open the parcel which was transmitted from their office.  Further, the complainant has not submitted any invoice or bill at the time of booking the consignment and not disclosed the contents to the opposite parties, hence the complainant put to loss of Rs.16,700/- towards the value of the lost consignment.  The opposite parties gave reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant, they are not negligent nor they are adopting any illegal unfair trade practices and also their services are deficit. The complaint is barred by limitation (1 year) because no notice was issued by the complainant within 15 days U/s 10 of Carriers Act.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.     

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10.  On the other hand, the opposite parties in support of their contentions filed their affidavit evidence and got no documents marked.

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 
3.  To what effect? 

6. The admitted facts of the case are that the opposite parties are doing transport business and the complainant is the hirer of their services.  It is further admitted that the complainant booked a courier consignment through the opposite party office at Kosgi under CC No.MBNR 6399036, dated 24-11-2009 for delivery at Amangal. The said consignment dispatched from Kosgi to Amangal but the same was lost in transit due to the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties.  However, the opposite parties tried their level best to trace out the same but their efforts went in vain.  

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he has booked a consignment of pesticides on 24-11-2009 worth of Rs.16,700/- for delivery to M/s Vasudeva Traders, Amangal through receipt Ex.A-1. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the same at its destination. Hence he sustained loss as claimed in the complaint. The said acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and they are liable for the same.  

8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the opposite parties were not aware of the contents of the consignments booked and transported under Ex.A-1 since it is in packed and sealed condition.  Further, the complainant has not submitted any invoice or bill at the time of booking the consignment. The complainant to gain wrongfully claiming Rs.16,700/- towards the lost goods and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation is imaginary and no proof and the burden lies on him to prove the value of the lost consignment. They further contended that no notice issued U/s 10 of Carriers Act within stipulated time. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

9. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to deliver consignment to M/s Vasudeva Traders, Amangal and thus caused financial loss and mental agony.  For the deficiency of service he is entitled for compensation besides worth of the consignment. In support of his contention he has marked Ex.A-1 consignment receipt under which goods are booked. Ex.A-2 bill dated 24-11-2009 under which said goods are transported. Ex.A-3 is the invoice delivery challan and Ex.A-4 is courier receipt dated 15-2-2010 under which he made a representation to the opposite parties. Exs.A-5 and A-6 are copies of the representation.  Ex.A-7 is the legal notice issued to the opposite parties and Ex.A-10 is the reply given by the opposite parties. On the other hand, it is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant to gain wrongfully claiming Rs.16,700/- towards lost goods and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation. The said contention of the opposite parties cannot be entertainable in the absence of any valid documentary and oral evidence. Admittedly booked courier consignment under Ex.A-1 through the OP-2 on 24-11-2009 not delivered to the consignee at Amangal so far.  Admittedly it is the contention of the opposite parties that it was lost in transit due to the circumstances beyond their control though they tried their level best to trace out the same but their efforts went in vain.  On this aspect, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties are negligent in handling the consignment. Hence they are liable for deficiency in service on their part.  The documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-7 produced on behalf of the complainant.  A perusal of these documents shows that the goods booked are not delivered inspite of the best efforts made by the complainant. Further, under Ex.A-10 reply notice of the opposite parties they simply stated that matter is being examined and action in this regard will be informed in due course, which itself shows their negligence in handling the services to its consumers. As the goods sent under Ex.A-1 lost due to negligent services of the opposite parties they are liable to refund the value of the goods sent under consignment Ex.A-1 besides reasonable compensation for mental agony. Though the opposite parties contended that the complainant to gain wrongfully claiming Rs.16,700/- towards the lost goods and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their contention. On the other hand, the complainant filed required cash bill and invoice as under Exs.A-2 and A-3 which was not challenged by the opposite parties. They simply stated that the complainant has not submitted any invoice or bill at the time of booking the consignment.  The said contention of the opposite parties cannot be entertainable for the simple reason that nobody will give invoice or bill presuming that when the goods are lost they can claim value of the goods.  It is for the transport authorities to mention the approximate value of the goods in their receipts while booking the consignment.  But the opposite parties failed to discharge their obligation as evident under Ex.A-1.   

10. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complaint was not maintainable in the absence of notice U/s 10 of Carriers Act. But the said contention cannot be entertainable in view of the clear oral and documentary evidence of the complainant that immediately after receiving the information about non receipt of consignment he approached the opposite parties for delivery of the acknowledgment letter or receipt in token of delivery of the consignment to the consignee.  Further, he has made written complaint to them as under Exs.A-5 and A-6 besides issuance of legal notice under Ex.A-7. Further, the opposite parties failed to take such a plea at initial stage while giving reply to the legal notice to the complainant as under Ex.A-10. All these facts would loose the significance of the contention of the opposite parties.  In a decision reported in I (2010) CPJ 240 (NC) (Gati Limited Vs. Medisearch Pharmaceuticals Limited) it is held that opposite parties throughout been negligent, careless in handling consignment-deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties proved.           

11. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire material on record and the principle laid down in the above decision and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for payment of cost of the consignment lost i.e., Rs.16,700/- besides some reasonable compensation and costs. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.   

12. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing both the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.16,700/- towards the value of the lost consignment and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for damages and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2011.    

 

  I agree                                                                                           I agree  

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

    Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -           

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Courier Receipt, dt.24.11.2009.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Cash Bill, dt.24.11.2009.

Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Invoice Delivery Challan, dt.22.10.2009.

Ex.A-4: Original Courier Receipt, dt.15.2.2010.

Ex.A-5: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.15.12.2009.

Ex.A-6: Copy of Letter, dt.13.2.2010.

Ex.A-7: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.4.10.2010.

Ex.A-8: Original Postal Receipt.

Ex.A-9: Original Postal Acknowledgement.

Ex.A-10: Copy of Letter, dt.7.10.2010.

On behalf of OPs.:             

        - Nil -          

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Copy to:-

1. Sri G. Vikramdev, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri Anantha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.