DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA
PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT,
SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 2nd day of July 2008.
C.C. No. 48 /2008.
P.R. Eswara Reddy, S/o P.C.Gangi Reddy,
aged about 38 years, Advocate, #7/353-2A,
NGO Colony, Kadapa. ……Complainant.
Vs
1) The Express Courier Pvt. Ltd.,
District Franchisee, #7/347-27-B, Simhapuri Colony,
Opp. Petrol Bunk, Near RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa.
2) The Express Courier Pvt. Ltd.,
Corporate Office, # 8-1-32, Sri Narasimha Sadan,
1st Floor, Market Street, Shivaji Nagar,
Secundrabad – 500 003. …….Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri B. Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate for the complainant, R-1 is not pressed by Complainant on 10-6-2008, and Sri. P. Jayarami Reddy, Advocate for R-2, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(per Sri. S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member)
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The Complainant is practicing advocate since 12 years in District Court, Kadapa. The first Respondent is the Kadapa District Franchisee of second Respondent, who is the corporate office of the Express Courier Private Limited, running their business from Secundrabad. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had issued a Notification on 27-7-2006, calling application from eligible and qualified candidates for filling up of the vacant post of Male Member, District Forum, Kadapa. As per their notification, the filled in application should reach to their office at Hyderabad by 5:00 PM on 5-8-2006. Being an eligible and aspiring candidate, the Complainant sent his application i.e. Bio-Data to the State Consumer Forum, Hyderabad on 3-8-2006, through the First Respondent. While booking the cover containing application form, the Respondent assured the Complainant that the said cover definitely will reach to the addressee on the next day i.e.,4-8-2006. Believing the assurance of the first Respondent, the Complainant booked his cover containing application form on 3-8-2006 at Kadapa office. After ten days, the Complainant went to the first Respondent’s office at Kadapa for collecting the P.O.D Copy (Acknowledgement). To utter surprise, he came to know that the said cover was delivered to addressee on 7-8-2006 at evening hours. When the Complainant questioned about this with first Respondent’s representative by name T.Murali Mohan, he simply stated that he is not at fault, he sent the load to the corporate office, Hyderabad on the same day i.e. 3-8-2006 night about 10:00 PM, and he did his duty, it is the duty of the second Respondent to deliver the said cover to the addressee in time, who had failed to discharge his duty, within time. On 5-11-2006, the Complainant, issued legal notice to the Respondents calling upon them to pay a compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- jointly and severally to him. The same was received by both the Respondents. In them, the second Respondent gave a reply dated 11-11-2006, expressing that due to traffic conditions in transit the load was received late, hence cover delivered to addressee late. But the Complainant humbly submits that there were no major traffic jams either on the way of transit from Kadapa to Hyderabad or in the twin cities during those days. Simply, to escape from their liability took lame excuses. This clearly shows that the services of the Respondents are deficient in nature. Due to the deficiency of service by the Respondents, the Complainant lost a good opportunity to compete for the honorary post of the Member of the District Forum, Kadapa. The Complainant is having required qualification, experience and reasonably good chances of getting selected for the said post. Due to the attitude of the both Respondents, the Complainant lost most respectable post in the society. Had the Respondents delivered the said cover within time, the Complainant would have appeared for Written Test and the Interview of the State Forum, Hyderabad he would have got a chance to prove his talent. But due to the acts of the Respondents all this wasted. Therefore the Complainant prayed that the Hon’ble Forum, be pleased to allow the complaint and pass an order in favour of the Complainant, directing the Respondents (a) To pay Rs.4,20,000/- as compensation for losing opportunity to compete for the most respectable and honorary post, with an interest of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint to till realization of decree amount, (b)To pay Rs.35,000/- for the mental agony sustained by the Complainant (c) To pay of Rs.40,000/- for the loss of dignity, status which the post is having (d) To pay Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of this complaint and (e) Other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
4. Respondents have filed a counter stating that, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The allegations mentioned in the complaint of the Complainant are denied in toto except which are admitted hereunder. The Complainant booked one cover with R-1 on 3-8-2006 to deliver the same to the addressee at Hyderabad. But the Complainant did not disclose that the said cover should reach the addressee by 5-8-2006 at 5:00 PM. Further the Respondents never assured the Complainant that the said cover would be delivered on 4-8-2006 since the courier service depend on other service providers like co-loaders, public and private buses, railways etc., and when their service is effected, naturally courier service will be effected. Though every care is taken to ensure delivery within 24 to 72 hours, delays can always occur due to certain factors beyond their control. Further they book documents/consignments subject to terms and conditions printed overleaf of senders copy of the consignment note. In case documents is lost or delayed in transit or in delivery, their maximum liability is limited to Rs.100/-. The cover booked by the Complainant was received late due to traffic conditions in the transit, the cover of the Complainant was delivered to the addressee on 7-8-2006 since 6-8-2006 being a Sunday. The claim of Rs.4,20,000/- towards compensation towards honorarium for a period of 5 years @ Rs.7,000/- is beyond imagination that the Complainant could have appeared the written examination and succeeded for the said post even if the said cover was delivered to the addressee before last date and as such the claim of the Complainant is not maintainable and the Complainant is not entitled for any claim from these Respondents. As per clause 8 of the conditions mentioned overleaf of the consignment note, the liability of the courier is limited to Rs.100/- only. Further as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions, the Respondent shall not liable in any event for any consequential or special damages or other direct or indirect loss howsoever arising direct or indirect loss however arising whether or not the Respondent has knowledge that such damages might be incurred, including but not limited to loss of income, profit interest, utility or loss of market. The Complainant filed the present complaint after lapse of 20 months from the date of occurrence. It clearly shows the malafide intention of the Complainant to have unlawful gain from these Respondents and also to defame the Respondents in the society. The Apex Court time and time categorically stated that the liability of the courier is limited to Rs.100/- and also held that in absence of any declaration by the Complainant to the effect that the said cover should reach the addressee by a particular date, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the courier. In the present case also the Complainant has not informed about the importance of cover and should reach the same on or before 5-8-2006. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and the Complainant has no right to claim compensation from the Respondents. However the Complainant is put to strict proof of the allegations mentioned in his complaint that he was informed to the R-1 that the said cover should deliver on or before 5-8-2006. The claim of the Complainant is beyond imaginary and also there is no direct loss to him and hence the claim of the Complainant is not maintainable. The Respondents therefore prays the Hon’ble Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
5. On the basis of above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A-1 to A-5 were marked and on behalf of the Respondents Ex.B-1 was marked. No witnesses were examined on both sides. Oral arguments were heard from both sides.
7. Point No.1: Ex.A-1 is the X/c of the Notification of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dated 27-7-2006, Ex. A-2 is the Express Courier receipt dated 3-8-2006, Ex.A-3 is the Carbon copy of Ex.A-2, Ex.A-4 is the Carbon Copy of legal notice addressed to both the Respondents by the Complainant dated 5-11-2006, Ex.A-5 is the original letter from G. Kashinath, Authorized Signatory, the Express Courier dated 11-11-2006 addressed to the Complainant. Ex.B-1 is the X/c of Terms and Conditions of Domestic Carriage by the Express Courier Pvt. Ltd.
8. The case of the Complainant is that as per Ex.A-1 applications are called for from the eligible and qualified candidates for the vacant post of Male Member, Dist. Consumer Forum, Kadapa with a direction that the applications should reach the Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad by 5:00 PM on 5-8-2006. Being an eligible and aspiring candidate the Complainant sent his application along with his Bio-data to the Hon’ble State Commission on 3-8-2006 through R-1. As per Ex.A-2 the cover containing the application of the Complainant was received in the Hon’ble State Commission on 7-8-2006 i.e. two days after the due date. Due to late delivery of his cover containing application, the Complainant lost a chance for appearing for the written examination followed by oral interview for the post of Male Member in the Dist. Consumer Forum, Kadapa. The learned counsel for the Complainant filed a memo on behalf of the Complainant stating that the Complainant came to know through counsel of R-2 who is the Head Office that the Branch Office i.e. R-1 is not existing at Kadapa as they removed their branch from Kadapa. The Complainant filed this memo not pressing the complaint against R-1. In view of this memo the case against R-1 was dismissed on 10-6-2008. Now the case against R-2 remains to be considered. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon (2005) CPJ 53 of Hon’ble State Commission, Madya Pradesh in which the Hon’ble State Commission in the case of Saurabh Jain V/s Madhur Courier Service observed that so far the delivery of envelop is concerned, the opposite party have delivered the envelop to the addressee and, therefore, the opposite party cannot be held deficient. Moreover, as per the receipt is issued by the opposite party, the liability is limited only upto Rs.100/-and, therefore, at the most the Complainant is entitled for the claim upto Rs.100/-. The facts and circumstances of this case is quite different with the present case.
9. The learned counsel for the Complainant relied upon III (2006) CPJ 435 of Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in which the Hon’ble State Commission in the case of Garrayrana V/s Director, DTDC House, observed that the deficiency in service was proved, the contentions that the compensation is restricted to Rs.100/- is not acceptable in the absence of any document confirming contractual agreement and that opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs. The Respondent contended that due to traffic conditions in the transit the cover of the Complainant was delivered to the addressee on 7-8-2006 since 6-8-2006 being holiday. The plea of the Respondent is not considered for the reason that the Complainant booked the cover on 3-8-2006 with the Respondent which is not disputed and the Respondent is expected to deliver the cover to the addressee on the next day i.e. on 4-8-2006 if not atleast by 5-8-2006. Both 4-8-2006 and 5-8-2006 are not Sundays or holidays. The normal practice in courier service is that all the booked covers will the sent to the destination by buses in the night on the same day and it will be received by their agent on the next day morning and they are expected to deliver the covers to the addressee on the next day itself if not atleast on the second day. The cover in question was delivered to the addressee on 7-8-2006 with a gap of 4 days and the contention of the Respondent that the traffic jam etc., is not convincing for consideration. In view of the above facts and circumstances the Complainant lost a chance to appear for the written examination for the post of Male Member in Dist. Consumer Forum, Kadapa as his application was not received in the Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad on or before 5-8-2006.
10. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Second Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs of this complaint to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Rest of the claim is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 2nd July 2008.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Complainant : Nil For Respondents : Nil
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A-1 X/c of the Notification of A.P. State Disputes Redressal
Commission, Hyderabad dated 27-7-2006
Ex.A-2 Express Courier receipt dated 3-8-2006
Ex.A-3 Carbon copy of Ex.A-2
Ex.A-4 Carbon Copy of legal notice addressed to both the Respondents by the Complainant dated 5-11-2006
Ex.A-5 Original letter from G. Kashinath, Authorized Signatory, the Express Courier dated 11-11-2006 addressed to the Complainant.
Exhibits marked for Respondents:
Ex.B-1 X/c of Terms and Conditions of Domestic Carriage by the Express
Courier Pvt. Ltd.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1)Sri. B. Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa
2)Sri. P. Jayarami Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy was delivered to parties :
V.R.V. - - -
