BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATHI.
FA.No.694/2012 against C.C.No.73/2011 District Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R.District.
Between:
G.M.S.Courier Service,
Rep. by its Zonal Manager,
Zonal Office, No.189/1, 6thrdChamarajpet, Bangalore.
…Appellant/2nd
And
1.A.V.S.Chandra Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy,
…R.1/Complainant.
2.G.M.S.Courier Service,
…R.2/1st
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
Opposite Party 2, G.M.S.Courier Service (in short ‘Courier Service’) ,preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Kadapa directing it along with O.P.1 to pay Rs.27,000/- towards loss, Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs in all Rs.1,00,000/-.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he was Chief Business Associate in UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Infrastructure Technology Service Ltd, etc. and has been sending courier covers from Kadapa to Chennai, Mumbai and Hyderabad through O.P.1 Courier Service.
R.1 and R.2 did not choose to contest and therefore, they were set exparte.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8.
The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the eight covers that were entrusted to O.P.1 in order to send the same by way of courier service to the Chennai address were not delivered by O.P.1 as agreed and therefore, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.27,000/- towards fine imposed by UTI and TSL, Chennai as per the agreement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum directed O.P. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.27,000/- towards loss, besides compensation of Rs.70,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- in all Rs.1,00,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, O.P.2 preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard?
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant was sending 474 PAN card applications to the addressee at Chennai through O.P.1, a Branch Office of O.P.2 courier service.
5.Penalties:
(e)
Obviously the complainant has paid Rs.2,700/- in the light of the above said Clause.
O.P.2 without contesting for the first time raised a plea that only when P.P. was filed, it received notice.
It may be stated that it was a dispute between O.P.1 and O.P.2 which has nothing to do with the complainant.
However,
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified directing O.P.No.2 to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation
Contd…5
together with costs of Rs.5,000/- in this appeal.
________________________
________________________
Vvr.
