BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.174 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.436 

Between:

G.Chandra Mouli S/o Sankara Sastry
aged about 38 yrs, Editor, Jeevanarekha
Evening Telugu Daily, Durga Nilayam
Near Dongala Mandapam, Western St.,
Eluru-1, W.G.District                                                                                           

1.  DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited
Eluru Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager
beside Ramamahal Theatre, R.R.Pet, Eluru-2 WG

2.  DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited
Visakhapatnam Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager

3.  The Chairman & MD,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited
Victoria Road, Bangalore-47, Karnataka

Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                     

Counsel for the Respondents                                                       

QUORUM:  

AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

 TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH  

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

1.            appeal arises from the order of the District Forum whereby the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to furnish correct address of the consignee and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.            `10,000/-. The appellant suffered mental tension and financial loss as the respondents rendered deficient service. Hence, the complaint is filed before the District Forum.

3.            

4.             

5.            Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the respondents endorsed D/N/W and the abbreviation is not authenticated and that the respondents failed to give reply to the notice of the appellant. It is contended that the respondents have to prove that the door number mentioned on the envelope is incorrect. It is contended that the District Forum failed to see that the respondents have to obtain its permission to open the envelope and prove that the appellant’s bio-data is not kept therein. It is contended that incorrect date in the notice is mentioned due to typographical mistake. 

6.            

7.            

8.               

9.            

I submit that infact my office and the 2^nd  

10.           `10,000/- claimed as compensation.    

In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. 

                                                                                                                                      కెఎంకె*