BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Friday the 24th day of November, 2006
C.C. No.106/2006
K.Suvarna Kumari, W/o. K.K.S.Reddy, House-Wife,
H.No.77-187-B5. A.P.S.Police Colony, Kallur Industrial Estate, Kurnool-518003.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director, D.T.C.C. Courier and Cargo Limited,
Sri Subhash Chakrabarthy, DTDC, House No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-4.
2. The Branch Manager, Sudharshan,
DTDC Office, Near Idgah, RTC Bus stand Road, Kurnool.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. G. Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri R.Murali Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, Seeking compensation of Rs.10,000/-, and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony, suffered and Rs.10,000/- as value of the D.D. lost, from the opposite parties as they failed to render proper service in delivering to the complainant the courier consignment containing a crossed D.D. of Rs.10,000/- booked by the complainant’s husband on 30.05.2006 vide consignment note number 17581910 from Doom Dooma Branch of opposite parties in Assam –on the pretext of its “nontracel” as mentioned in letter dated:10.07.2006 of second opposite party. The opposite party No.1 as the Managing Director of the concern courier service and its activities throughout out India and the opposite party No.2 as Managing the said courier service at Kurnool i.e., at the place of delivery point of the said courier consignment, was served with notice dated:30.03.2006 as to the grievances of the complainant arising out of deficit conduct of said courier service and the opposite parties keeping quite to said notice without responding to it.
2. In pursuance of receipt of notice issued by this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying any of its liability and seeking dismissal of the complainant with costs alleging in written version that it is the bounden the duty of the consigner to declare/disclose the contents of the consignment at the booking point itself when it is valuable one as such of a D.D.–but it was not done so and it is express violation of terms and conditions of said courier service, and there being any receipt of said consignment by the opposite party no deficiency of service at its end and the claim is not justified and no cause of action on the opposite party has arisen at Kurnool.
3. In substantiation of the pleading contentions while the complainant side has placed reliance on the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 besides to its Sworn Affidavit and replies to the interrogatories caused, the opposite parties side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 besides to the Sworn Affidavit of opposite party No.2 and replies to the interrogatories caused.
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether the deficiency of the opposite parties is made out by the complainant as to hold liability of the opposite parties for the complainant’s claim.
5. Pending enquiry of the matter the complainant’s side has filed a memo on 15.11.2006 limiting the claim to compensation for mental agony, and deficiency of service as a duplicate of the lost D.D. was obtained from the bank by the complainant for the needful.
6. The Ex.A1 is the consignment note dated:30.05.2006 said to have been issued by the office of said courier service at Doom Dooma Branch of Assam State. As there is any rebuttal to it discrediting its bonafidies from it it remains established as to the booking of said consignment on 30.05.2006 from the said courier office for its delivery at consignees address.
7. The Ex.A2–letter dated:10.07.2006 of the opposite party No.2 addressed to the complainant advising the complainant to take up the matter with the bank for stop payment and for issual a duplicate. As the complainant filed a memo as to having a duplicate of said D.D. from said bank the advise given by the opposite party No.2 remains to have complied by the complainant to the said extent.
8. The contention of the opposite party in its written version is that the consignor is having a bounden duty to declare/disclose the contents of the consignment at the booking point itself and as the consignor has not done so there is an express violation of terms and conditions of said courier service and thereby the opposite parties are at any liability for the contents of said consignment. The Ex.A1 the courier consignment note contains on its reverse page the terms and conditions of carriage. But they are of so small print for any intelligible reading to find out any such relevant term and condition as alleged by the opposite party. The Ex.B1 is an enlarged form of courier consignment of note and its terms and conditions. None of those terms and conditions of carriage appearing in Ex.B2 casts any such bounden duty on consignor to disclose or declare the contents of the consignment at the booking point. Further if the declaration of the contents of the consignment is so mandatory one, as per the opposite party, nothing would have prevented the opposite party from refraining the issual of said consignment if the consignor failed to disclose or declare the contents of said consignment. As there is any such conduct from the opposite party at the time of booking said consignment and in the absence of any such specific mandatory term in the terms and conditions of said courier service the said contention of the opposite party holds any water to give any due importance to it and thereby to give any excuse to the opposite party in their deficient conduct.
9. The contentions of the opposite party No.2 in its written version is that it did not at all received said consignment booked from Doom Dooma Branch Assam and it did not conform any where as to its receipt and hence, there arises any cause of action to the complainant for laying this complainant against them. But the contents of first para of Ex.A2 letter dated:10.07.2006 addressed by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant as reads that “The said C/ment (consignment) which was booked from Assam to Kurnool was forwarded by Assam but misplaced not traceable at our end, however we tried our level best to trace out the document but could not trace out.” And in the absence of any of its specific exposure therein as to non receipt of said consignment at all by it, it goes without any further say that the opposite party No.2 is admitting the forwarding of said consignment by Assam to it and its misplacement leading to its “nontracel” of it at its end and thereby it remains clear that the opposite party No.2 is not so innocent as pleads in his pleadings as to his unawareness of said consignment and its receipt by it and on the other hand appears to be bent upon inconsistent misrepresentation to disown any of its liability some how are other. If really the opposite party No.2 did not at all in receipt of the said consignment forwarded by Assam office he would have pleaded his unawareness of said consignment alleging of its non receipt clearly advising the complainant or consignor to take up the matter with the issual branch office of said consignment on the reason of its non receipt at consignees delivery point, and would not have taken pains to waste so many words as mentioned in para No.1 of said Ex.A2 letter.
10. As there is no specific denial as to receipt of said consignment by opposite party No.2 and on the other is admitting at the same time its forwarding to it in said Ex.A2 there appears any justifiability’s or bonafidies to the opposite parties in denying the cause of action to complainant at Kurnool.
11. Further the reluctant conduct of the opposite parties is remaining clear from its written version averment that it did not reply to the notice of the complainant (Ex.A3-having acknowledged the same) as it did not warrant any reply especially when it is consisting of grievances of complainant which the opposite parties must answer, if there are any bonfidies with them, either way as to its any liability with its defences available to them.
12. The Ex.A4 letter dated:12th June 2006 of the complainant husband addressed to the issual courier office at Doom Dooma –besides alleging the booking consignment at Doom Dooma Branch for its delivery to consignees noted therein at Kurnool, says the consignment was forwarded to Kurnool on first June and the same was received by the opposite party No.2 on 2nd June 2006 at 5-46 as per the customer care Hyderabad and the opposite party No.2 is not responding to the approaches regarding it. The said was acknowledged by issual office dispatching its copies to all concerned. Inspite of that the said was not rebutted by the contesting opposite parties either with its issual office or with the consignor or complainant. This conduct exposes the careless and reluctant attitude of the opposite parties at their customers to whom it owes a duty to render proper service accepting the transmission of the consignment for cost from the incidence of its acceptance of necessary charges from the consignor by its issual office, to see the proper delivery of the consignment article to the consignee by the consignee branch office of the said courier service.
13. In the light of the memo filed by the complainant’s side on 15.11.2006 as to its obtaining a duplicate D.D. from the bank for the needful, even though the complainant was remaining as not put to any loss of the said D.D.sent under said consignment in Ex.A1, but as was put to tension and mental agony, at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties in not effecting the delivery of the consignment forwarded by Assam’s Doom Dooma Branch Office being said to have received the same on 2nd June 2006 as per Ex.A4 and so the opposite party No.2 as branch office meant for delivery of said consignment booked under Ex.A1, having reason to believe of its receipt for delivery and the opposite party No.1 as office having control and super vision over the opposite party No.2 did not see the delivery of said consignment article they are liable to make good of compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant at their non responsive conduct.
14. The Ex.B1 is the enlarged Xerox proforma of the goods consignment note of the opposite parties courier service containing the terms and conditions applicable to said service. Basing on the same and taking reference to the condition No.5 of it the opposite parties contend that their liability if any for loss of the consignment article is limited to Rs.100/- only. But as the Ex.A1 original consignment note as not bearing the signature of the consignor accepting to the terms and conditions there is the opposite parties cannot bind the complainant or its consignor to the said terms and conditions especially when the printed terms and conditions on the reverse page of Ex.A1 is neither readable nor intelligible to suppose any of its going through by the consignor. So the said contentions of the opposite parties holds any much water and thereby any much merit and force to give any credit of it in their favour.
15. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to he complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties as the purport of the compensation is not for money gaining but only proportionate to the loss or injury or inconvenience or mental agony suffered and a sum of Rs.500/- as costs of this case as the complainant was driven to the forum for relief. The opposite parties joint and severally comply the supra award within a month of the receipt of this order. In default the complainant will be at liberty to proceed as per law for compliance of the order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 24th day of November, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Original Courier Consignment note, dated:30.05.2006 along with
terms and conditions.
Ex.A2 Letter of Opposite party No.2 dated:10.07.2006, addressed to the
complainant.
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice, dated:30.06.2006 addressed to O.P’s1&2
along with postal receipts and acknowledgements of O.P’s1&2.
Ex.A4 Letter, dated:12.06.2006, addressed by K.K.S.Reddy, Air Wing (ATC)
ARC, Doom Dooma, Tinsukia –Dist Assam to D.T.D.C. Courier &
Cargo (P) Ltd., Doom Dooma Branch,
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Enlarged specimen copy of courier consignment note and terms and
conditions.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri.G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. R.Muralikrishna , Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
