A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ATHYDERABAD

FA 968/2011 against

Between :

M/s. Travel World,

A partnership firm rep. by

Its partner T.Aged about 52 years, R/o 90,

SarojinideviSecunderabad                                                                               

And

01.  Dr.S/o Dr. P.

02.  Pullakhandam(w/o

03.  M/s. Blue Dart DHL Service

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. AnilBlue Dart Express Ltd, Blue Dart Centre,

SaharAndheri , Mumbai 400 099                                 

Counsel for the Appellant      Counsel for the Respondents 

FA 1087/2011 against

Between :

01.      M/s. Blue Dart DHL Service

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. AnilBlue Dart Express Ltd, Blue Dart Centre,

SaharAndheri , Mumbai 400 099 

And

01.  Dr.S/o Dr. P.

02.   (w/o

03.   M/s. Travel World,

A partnership firm rep. by

Its partner T.Aged about 52 years, R/o 90,

SarojinideviSecunderabad              

Counsel for the Appellant      Counsel for the Respondents 

Coram                             And

                                   Tuesday

****

01.These appeals are filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively as against the orders dated 27.10.2011 in CC No. 773/2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum I, Hyderabad. Since both the appeals are filed challenging the same order we intend to dispose of both the appeals by a common order as under. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder :

02. The gist of the complaint is that both the complainants came to India along with their two children for spending vacation in Hyderabad and they intended to go back to USA after visiting Singapore, Malaysia and Japan.  th  ndst st

03.In such circumstances, the complainants requested the 2^nd  nd         

04. The 1^st    

05.The 2^nd

The complainants approached                  

06.It is also pleaded by OP. 2 that they are not liable to pay any damages much less the damages of Rs.15 lakhs claimed by the complainants as it is not responsible for losing the consignment containing the travel documents of the complainants and that OP. 1 alone is responsible for such a lapse and thus prayed

07.Both sides field evidence affidavits reiterating their respective stands Ex. A1 to A12 and Ex. B1 to B18 were marked on behalf of the complainants and Op.2 respectively,

08.Having heard both sides and considering the material on record, the District Forum vide  

09.Aggrieved by the said order, the Op.1 filed   

10.Op.2 field FA No. 968/2011 and mainly contended that on a careful perusal of the documents marked by them it is clear that no deficiency of service can be attributed to Op. 2 in as much as it has performed its duty or service with utmost care diligently and effectively and that the complainant failed to establish any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or short coming or inadequacy in the service rendered by it and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed against it.

11.Heard the learned counsel for the complainants 1 and 2 and

12.Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?

13.POINT :

There is no dispute that the 1^stnd nd     

8.1:          

Clause 9 reads as follows: 

9.1      

The complainants did not establish with any legal and dependable evidence that there was willful fault, imperfection, shortcomings or inadequacy on the part of Ops 1 and       

15.In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that impugned order is liable to be modified allowing the appeals in part scaling down the damages/compensation