C.C. No. 67 of 2009 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER. Friday, 24
th July 20092 per day. It was for his livelihood. The R1 transported the machinery to R2 vide LR No. 3070, dt. 30-5-2008, who intrun transported to R3. It was informed that it would be delivered after three days i.e. by 3-6-2008. It was not received at any time. The complainant came to know that the consignment was missed and damaged either at Proddatur or Pulivendula at the time of unloading. Therefore, the respondents did not give proper reply. The complainant claimed Rs. 58,000/- towards cost of the machine, Rs. 1,100/- for freight charges and Rs. 2,40,000/- towards liability of income at Rs. 1,000/- per day from 01-6-2008 to 1-2-2009 and compensation for deficiency of service Rs. 1,00,000/- totaling Rs. 3,99,100/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs. 3. The R1 & R2 filed written statement adopted by R3 with a memo. It was correct that the complainant booked consignment at Secunderabad with R1. There was no contract or prior agreement in between R1 & R2 with R3 for transportation from Proddatur to Pulivendula. The machinery was consigned to Pulivendula through R3 as per request of the complainant. It was mentioned in the lorry receipt. The R1 & R2 consigned the machinery as per conditions mentioned in the lorry receipt dt. 30-5-2008. The lorry receipt would be prepared in triplicate after explaining the conditions. The consignment would be booked after knowing conditions. The complainant received the lorry receipt and also booked the consignment. There was a condition “leakage and breakage, loading and unloading is at party risk (consignor)”. Another condition was if the goods booked under the G.R do not reach the destination within one month from the date of booking, the consignee should submit a registered notice to the booking station and copy to the Head Office, otherwise the company was not responsible. The bill was not produced at the time of booking the consignment. Therefore, the value column in the receipt was kept blank. The complainant did not say when and at whom the consignment C.C. No. 67 of 20093 was under custody and where it was damaged. Therefore, the respondents 1 & 2 were not liable. The complaint was bad as no notice was issued prior to filing of the complaint. There was no correspondence to the respondents. Hence, the complaint was time barred. The claim was excessive and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 & Ex. A2 were marked. No documents were marked and filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. Point No. 1 & 2 It was an admitted fact that the complainant booked a consignment at Secunderabad with R1 for transportation of machinery from Secunderabad to proddatur and the complainant received the lorry receipt after he booked the consignment. The complainant purchased one thopada machine for Rs. 55,000/- on 30-5-2008 from Hi-tech Machinery Corporation, Secnderabad. The Xerox copy of receipt was Ex. A2. The complainant argued that the machinery cost was Rs. 55,000/- and tax thereon was Rs. 3,000/- totaling Rs. 58,000/-. But the tax of Rs. 3,000/- was not mentioned anywhere in Ex. A2 So the cost of the machinery was Rs. 55,000/- only. He filed Ex. A1 a Xerox copy of freight charges Rs. 1,100/- under receipt issued by R1 to transport the consignment from Secunderabad to Proddatur on 30-5-2008. On perusal of the entire counter it was clear that the consignment did not reach Pulivendula and the complainant had not taken the consignment from R3. Therefore, the consignment was lost either at R1 & R2 or R3. The R1 sent the consignment to R2 at Proddatur, who inturn sent the same to the C.C. No. 67 of 20094 complainant through R3. Therefore, all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to the loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant claimed Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss of income @ Rs. 1,000/- per day from 01-6-2008 to 01-2-2009. But there was no proper proof for the loss of daily income. Thus there is deficiency and negligence on the part of the respondents. 7. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 58,100/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand one hundred only) towards cost of the machine, freight charges and compensation and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs, totaling Rs. 59,100/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand one hundred only) payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 24 MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 X/c of Goods consignment note No. 3070, dt. 30-5-2008 issued by R1. Ex. A2 X/c of consignment purchase bill issued by Hi-Tech Machinery Corporation, Secunderabad, dt. 30-5-2008. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - NIL MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate. 2) Sri G.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate. 3) Sri Ram Prasad, Advocate. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 67 of 2009th July 2009 CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 67 / 2009 Chinthakunta Ranga Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 57 years, Hindu, Saw Mill Business, Residing at d.No. 3-9-29, Bakrapuram, Opp. Bharath Petroleum, Kadapa road, Pulivendula Town and Mandala, Kadapa district. ….. Complainant. Vs. 1) M/s New Cuddapah Proddatur Transport Service, (Konda Reddy Parcel Service), 2-4-552/9, Lakshmi Plaza, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad – 500 003, Rep. by Managing Director. 2) M/s New Cuddapah Proddatur Transport Service, (Konda Reddy Parcel Service), Jabbar Street, Proddatur, Rep. by Manager. 3) M/s Sairam Tranport, Oppoiste to Vinayaka Temple, Main Raod, Pulivendula, Rep. by its Manager. ….. Respondents. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 21-7-2009 in the presence of Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Sri G.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for R1 & R2 and Sri Ram Prasad, Advocate for R3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant was running a Saw mill in Pulivendula town, Kadapa District. He booked a consignment with R1 at Secunderabad to be transported to Pulivendula. The R1 informed that they had no branch at Pulivendula but it would be sent through their nearest branch, who would intrun send to Pulivendula through another transport. Accordingly the R1 sent the same to R2 at Proddatur from where it was transported to Pulivendula through R3. The complainant paid freight charges of Rs. 1,100/- for transportation from Secunderabad to Pulivendula. The machinery was for his day to day business. It was called thopada machine purchased for Rs. 55,000/- along with tax totaling Rs. 58,000/- from Hi-tech machinery Corporation, Secunderabad. If the machinery would be installed the complainant would earn Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/-
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | |
