DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

                                SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L.,

                                SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Wednesday, 8th day April 2009

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  125 / 2008

Sri Kanchi Kumaran Silks, Rep. by is Proprietor,

P. Veera Bhadra, S/o P. Veeraiah, aged about 35 years,

Hindu, Sarees Business, Manufacturers of handloom,

Quality pure silk Sarees, Pure Cotton Sarees,

D.No. 7/138-1, jayanagar colony, Kadapa,

Kadapa District.                                                                      ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1)  Gati Transport Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director,

     Regd. Office situated at 1-7-293, Mahatma Gandhi road,

     Secunderabad – 500 003.  

2)  Gati Transport Ltd, Rep. by its South India Incharge,

     M.R. Garden, Near Old Bowenpally, Hyerabad.

3)  Gati Transport Ltd, Rep. by its Manager,

     Madho Seth Lane Area, Kolkata.

4)  Gati Transport Ltd, Rep. by its Manager,

     Kadapa office, D.No. 1-1-116, Chinnachowk,

     Kadapa, Kadapa district (AP).                                              ….. Respondents. 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 3-04-2009 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for respondents 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 doing cotton, Handloom and silk cloth business at Kadapa and used to send return parcel of surplus stock of embroidery sarees through R4, which were purchased from Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar, who was a dealer of all types of embroidery sarees and Lahanga Chunni sets.  The respondents were doing business of transportation of goods throughout India.  On 20-10-2007 the complainant sent parcel of embroidery sarees to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata through R4.  The R4 collected Rs. 672/- from the complainant and issued a docket bearing L.R. No. 425486373.  It was mentioned in the docket about the assured date of delivery as 26-10-2007.  The value of the goods was Rs. 57,365/- +  Rs. 24,990/-. By mistake R4 mentioned in the docket that the value of the goods was Rs. 57,365/- and missed to mention other amount of Rs. 24,990/-.  It was not observed by the complainant.   The R4 had not given any receipt or L.R for Rs. 24,990/-.  The complainant received a letter dt. 14-11-2007 from Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar, Kolkata that the goods were not received at Kolkata and also informed to the complainant that a false stamp and duplicate signature by somebody at R3 was placed and R3 delivered to some person.  The complainant enquired R4, who informed the complainant that by mistake the value of the goods of Rs. 24,990/- was not mentioned but mentioned only Rs. 57,365/- about missing of the goods.  The complainant contacted the R2 by phone about missing of the goods, who expressed to enquire and secure the goods.  But it was not happened.  At last the complainant got issued a notice dt. 30-1-2008 to R1 to R2 and R4 to pay Rs. 57,365/- and              Rs. 24,990/- towards value of consignment.  The R2 and R4 failed to give reply but R1 sent an interim reply dt. 6-2-2008 and a detailed reply dt. 28-2-2008 with  false allegations.  In the reply notice R1 expressed that there was no proof with regard to the consignment worth of Rs. 24,990/- and a criminal case was already pending before court of law with regard to missing of goods and disputed amount and hence, it was not possible to deal with the disputed amount of Rs. 57,365/-.  Therefore, there was clear deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and hence, the complainant was filed for Rs. 82,355/- (Rs. 57,365/- + Rs. 24,990/-) towards cost of the missing parcel with interest @ 24% p.a. from 20-10-2007 till the date of payment and  Rs. 15,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.

3.                The respondents filed a counter that the complaint was not maintainable as it was a commercial transaction.   The consignment was booked to Kolkata from Kadapa on 20-10-2007 from Kanchi Kumaran Silks to Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar vide docket No. 425486373.   Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar was not impleaded as a necessary party and hence, the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary party.   The declared value of the consignment was Rs. 57,365/- and the consignment was delivered at Kolkata on 26-10-2007.  When the consignee came with written complaint, a legal action against franchisee was taken vide FIR No. 114/2007.  A complaint was filed in C/No. 1056/2007 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bankshall court situated at Kolkata.   The investigation report revealed that the allegation was a mistake of fact.  Even though the consignment was delivered, the respondents filed a wrong case against its franchisee.  There was no record available that Rs. 24,990/- worth of goods was not mentioned in the docket.  The consignment was delivered and so there was no deficiency of service and thus 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 respondents?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

5.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6  were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked.   No written arguments were filed by both parties. 

6.                Point No. 1 & 2  The complainant was Sri Kanchi Kumaran Silks doing sarees business, cotton, Handloom and silk cloths at Kadapa.  They used to purchase embroidery sarees and Lahanga Chunni sets from one Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata and used to send the parcel with surplus stock to him through R4 i.e. Gati Tranport Ltd., Kadapa branch.  On 20-10-2007 the complainant sent parcel of embroidery sarees to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata through R4 branch under docket No. 425486373, dt. 20-10-2007.  It was Ex. A1.   In Ex. A1 assured delivery date was shown as 26-10-2007 and the value of the consignment was Rs. 57,365/- and the charges collected by R4 was Rs. 672/-.   The complainant filed Ex. A2 Xerox copy of bills for Rs. 24,990/- dt. 6-10-2007 and Rs. 57,365/- dt.  6-10-2007 in favour of  Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata.  But in Ex. A1 the value of the consignment was written as Rs. 57,365/- but not mentioned another amount of Rs. 24,990/-.   There was no proof that the goods worth of Rs. 24,990/- was also included in the returned consignment.  After enquiries the consignment was not reached to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar of Kolkata.  He wrote a letter to the complainant dt. 14-11-2007 that he did not receive the goods.  But he contacted R3 who showed their copy of docket having a signature with stamp of Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar with date 26-10-2007. It was not his signature and it was put by somebody.    The letter was Ex. A3 from Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar.  Later the complainant got issued a notice to R1, R2 and R4 demanding payment of Rs. 82,355/- i.e. Rs. 57,365/- + Rs. 24,990/- as the consignment was not delivered to the consignee namely Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar.   The office copy of notice was Ex. A4, dt. 30-1-2008.  The R3 sent an interim reply to the complainant that they would enquire the matter and submit a detailed reply.  The Xerox copy of interim reply dt. 6-2-2008 was Ex. A5.  Ex. A6 was the Xerox copy of reply notice that the legal action has been taken against their franchisee namely Mr. Raghuabans Mani Tiwari, as the consignment was not delivered to the consignee and a complaint was also filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bankshall court situated at Kolkata and there was no record available with regard to the transaction of the consignment worth of                  Rs. 24,990/- but it was not possible to deal with the disputed amount of                         Rs. 57,365/- in view of criminal case pending for disposal.  More over some other persons have also not received the consignments including Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar. 

7.                The respondents filed a Xerox copy of copy of docket with alleged signature with stamp of  Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar with date 26-10-2007.    It was Ex. B1.  The signature  of Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar on Ex. B1 and on Ex. A3 were not same.   In case the complainant had not impleaded the consignee as a necessary party it was the duty of the complainant to implead consignee as one of the respondents.  It was not done so.  More over the R3 gave a complaint to Posta police station, Kolkata  with regard to the non-delivery of consignment on the basis of complaints from customers.   There were six non-delivery of the consignments including the consignment with docket No. and date mentioned in Ex. A1 and Ex. B1.  The complaint given to the Posta Police station, Kolkata was on 19-11-2007.  The Posta Police station, Kolkata registered a case as Cr. No. 114/2007 in which the consignment sent by the complainant to be delivered to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar on 26-10-2007 which was mentioned in Ex. B2 was also noted.  The Xerox copy of FIR was Ex. B3.  On 2-12-2008 the Posta Police station, Kolkata gave a letter to R3 that the case was declared as mistake of fact.  The Xerox copy of letter issued by the police was Ex. B4 in which the Cr. No. 114/2007 was shown with dt. as           18-10-2007 but in Ex. B3 the date of the registration of the complaint was shown as 23-12-2007.   It showed that the Posta police station, Kalkatta had not enquired properly about missing consignment shown in Ex. B2 including the consignment sent by the complainant under Ex. A1.  In these circumstances it is very clear that the consignment sent by the complainant to Sri Jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar was not delivered on 26-10-2007.  Ex. B1 had not the signature of the consignee but some persons put the signature and took delivery of the consignment.  Therefore, it was a very clear negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  There was no proof that the complainant sent consignment total worth of                      Rs. 82,355/-, but it was sent only the goods worth of Rs. 57,365/-.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 57,365/- towards cost of the missing parcel. 

8.                Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed.  Directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 57,365/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20-10-2007 till the date of realization, together with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards damages and Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) towards costs, payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of the 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 8th April 2009

 
MEMBER                                        MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                            For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1         Original docket no. 425486373, dt. 20-10-2007.

Ex. A2         X/c of bills issued by Sri Kanchi Kumaran Silks.

Ex. A3         Letter from Sri jagadeesh Prasad Suresh Kumar to complainant,

dt. 14-11-2007.

Ex. A4         Copy of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to respondents,

dt. 30-1-2008.

Ex. A5         X/c of interim reply notice from R3 to complainant, dt. 6-2-2008.

Ex. A6         X/c of reply notice from R3 to complainant, dt. 28-2-2008.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: - 

Ex. B1         X/c of docket no. 425486373, dt. 26-10-2007.

Ex. B2         X/c of letter from R3 to Posta police station, Kolkata, dt. 19-11-2007.

Ex. B3         X/c of FIR in cr. No. 114/2007.

Ex. B4         X/c of letter issued by Sub-inspector of police, dt. 2-12-2008.

MEMBER                                         MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT
Copy to :-

1)  Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate,

2)  Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate.

         1) Copy was made ready on     :

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :
 
 
B.V.P.                                               - - -