Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/474/2011

Divala Sreehari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agent of A.N.L. Parcel Service - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.V.K.K. Hemanth Prasad

06 Aug 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:13-12-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:06-08-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:      

1. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     President (FAC)  

                                2. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                    Male Member

 

                                 Wednesday, the 6^th day of August, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.474/2011

Between:-

Divala Sreehari, S/o Koteswara Rao,

aged about 25 years, R/at Adduroad,

Kothapolavaram, S. Rayavaram Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.Agent of A.N.L. Parcel Service,

   Adduroad, S. Rayavaram Mandal,

   Visakhapatnam District.

2.The Manager, A.N.L. Parcel Service,

   5-9-30/1/5/B, Road No.4, Palace Colony,

   Basheerbagh , Hyderabad-500 029.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties     

                     

          This case coming on 25.07.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.V.V.K.K. Hanumath Prasad, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P. Rama Rao & K. Suseela, Advocates for the Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

(As per the Honourable Male Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties:

          1.To hand over the consignment (motor of Hero Honda Splendor) to

             the Complainant herein by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2;

          2.Otherwise, direct the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties to pay damage and

             expenses stated below to the Complainant herein;

          a) Motor of Hero Honda Splendor                                Rs.30,000/-

          b) Purchasing Repair parts of above said engine           Rs.17,917/-

          c) Mechanic charges                                                       Rs.      500/-

             Total                                                                           Rs.48,417/-

         

3) To pay compensation         for the mental agony caused to the

    Complainant Rs.50,000/-;

4) To pay costs and to grant any other relief, which the Forum deems fit.

                                                                            

3.       The Opposite Parties strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

   4.    The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are parcel service and they collect charges for the above said services.   The Complainant was motor mechanic and his mechanic shop is situated at Adduroad in Surya Complex.   He had received an engine of Hero Honda Splendor from one customer by name Y. Ramachandra Murthy @ Ramababu from Srisailam to repair purpose.       For the spare parts the Complainant spent Rs.17,917/-.    The Complainant has to take Rs.500/- for repairing charges.   The engine of Hero Honda Splendor’s cost is Rs.30,000/- as per the market value.   The Complainant stated that the above consignment was handedover to A.N.L. Parcel Service on 12.02.2010 situated at Adduroad to be sent to the customer, who was staying at Srisailam.   To that effect, the Complainant paid Rs.134/- to the 1^st Opposite Party and he got receipt.     After one week of sending parcel of the above said consignment, the Complainant informed the customer that he sent the engine to him, but the customer replied that he had not received the above said parcel consignment.   Immediately, the Complainant approached the agent of A.N.L. Parcel Service, Adduroad and the Complainant informed that even one week has over, but the consignment was not delivered to the  customer at Srisailam.   Then, the Opposite Party replied that the above said booking article might have reached to Vijayawada, again and again the same reply was received by the Complainant from the 1^st Opposite Party and also the 1^st Opposite Party has rashly given reply to the Complainant.    The Complainant had got issued a legal notice on 19.05.2011 to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.  Even though the Complainant got issued a legal notice, the 1^st Opposite Party had not given reply, but the head office of A.N.L. Parcel Service had got issued reply notice to the Complainant.   It was issued on 14.06.2011 in which the 2^nd Opposite Party categorically stated that he was going to enquire and the same was informed to complainant.   But till today, the Opposite Parties have not taken any steps.    The Complainant further stated that the Complainant had approached the 1^st Opposite Party and orally asked about the above said consignment.   But the 1^st Opposite Party has not given reply properly and did not give reply notice to the legal notice issued by the Complainant.   It clearly shows that it comes under deficiency of service.    Hence, this complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.   Exs. A1 to A9 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counter, that the Complainant booked a parcel to Srisailam at Kurnool District and while booking the parcel, he mentioned the contents as spare parts, motor cycle and also declared the value of the contents of the parcel as Rs.3,000/- and the 1^st Opposite Party charged Rs.134/- for sending the parcel from Adduroad to Srisailam.   The Opposite Parties stated that the ANL Parcel Service is a joint venture with APSRTC and all the parcels and couriers to be transported will be sent through the buses of APSRTC.   The 1^st Opposite Party sent the parcel through Vijayawada and the 1^st Opposite Party is not aware whether the consignment is delivered at Srisailam or not.   The 1^st Opposite Party advised the Complainant to address a letter to the 2^nd Opposite Party with regard to the delivery of the consignment at Srisailam,   the 1^st Opposite Party never gave reply rashly to the Complainant.  The Complainant gave a legal notice for which the 2^nd Opposite Party gave an appropriate reply to the Complainant.   The Complainant sent a legal notice to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant orally that they were enquiring the matter and they would settle the matter at an early date, but the Complainant filed this complaint.   The  Opposite Parties stated that there is no deficiency of service as the Complainant did not join the A.P.S.R.T.C which is also a necessary party to the present proceedings.   The Opposite Parties further stated that the Complainant at the time of booking of parcel declared the value of the contents as Rs.3,000/-  only.  But the Complainant increased the value of the contents of the parcel abnormally, to gain unlawfully at the expenses of the Opposite Parties.   The Complainant is not entitled for mental agony or other as charges as claimed by the Complainant.   The complaint is not maintainable either under law or under facts and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

6.       The Opposite Parties filed an affidavit by the 1^st Opposite Party and also written arguments to buttress their contention.       No documents are marked for the Opposite Parties.

 

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties.         

 

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant booked the parcel in question on 12.02.2010 as per Ex.A4.   This is admitted by the Opposite Parties.   But the parcel was not delivered to the addressee.   The Complainant got issued a legal notice i.e., (Ex.A5) on 19.05.2011.   And the 2^nd Opposite Party replied on 14.06.2011 i.e,. (Ex.A7).   But till to date the Opposite Parties failed to trace the missing parcel.   It is as clear as daylight that there is outright deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   As such, the Complainant is entitled to get the amount equal to the declared value of the consignment i.e., Rs.3,000/-, with interest from the date of consignment, from the Opposite Parties.   He is also entitled to compensation as the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties should have caused much physical hardship and mental agony to him.   Moreover, as the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to costs of this complaint too.

 

          However, the claim of the Complainant, that the consignment contained a engine of Hero Honda Splendor which costs Rs.30,000/-, cannot be considered as the value of the consignment was only Rs.3,000/- as declared by the Complainant himself.

 

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: to pay a) Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) value of the consignment with interest @ 9% p.a. from 12.02.2010 till the date of actual realization, b) a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and also c) Costs of R.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 6^th day of August, 2014.

Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-

President                                                                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	09.02.2010	Bill No.128 an amount of Rs.9,090/- issued by the Sri Hanuman Automobiles & General Stores to Complainant	Original.
Ex.A2	08.02.2010	Cash Memo No.21 issued by the Jagadamba Automobiles.	Original
Ex.A3	08.02.2010	Cash Memo No.22 issued by the Jagadamba Automobiles	Original
Ex.A4		ANL Parcel Service Goods Consignment Note No.35700855	Original
Ex.A5	19.05.2011	Registered Lawyers Notice issued by Complainant’s counsel to 1st OP	Office copy
Ex.A6	25.05.2011	Postal Acknowledgement card	Original
Ex.A7	14.06.2011	Reply Notice issued by 2nd OP to the Complainant	Office copy
Ex.A8	15.11.2011	Padma Priya Automobiles Receipt an amount of Rs.30,000/-	Original
Ex.A9	19.05.2011	Returned Notice	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

                                      -Nil-

Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-

President                                                                                Male Member