BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

                           Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President

                                                        And

                           Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

                                                       And

                       Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

                               Wednesday the 24th day of June, 2009

                                                C.C.No. 14/09

Between:

S. Suresh Babu, S/o. S.Chinna Veerappa, Medical and General Store Business,

H.No.51/980-135, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool - 518 002.                                          

… Complainant

                                                            Versus

1. AIR State Couriers ,Represented by its Proprietor,

D.No.40/53/A2, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool - 518 001.

2. AIR State Couriers, Represented by its Managing Director,

8/3 RT Prakash Nagar, Opp. Main Entrance of Air Port, Begumpet, Main Road,

Hyderabad - 500 0016. 

                                        …

 Opposite parties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. B. Gopala Krishnudu, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. D.Siva Shankar Reddy , Advocate, for the opposite party No.1and opposite party No. 2 is called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                                        ORDER

                                  (As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)

                                                   C.C.No.14/09

1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 2

(1) ( G) and Sec. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 , seeking a direction on opposite

parties to pay Rs.12,000/- towards cost of medicines or to return the

parcel, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony , Rs.20,000/- towards

compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which

the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the

complainant booked a parcel on 25-05-2008 under receipt

No.200661358 through opposite party No. 1 for being delivered to Y.

Tirumalamma of Secunderabad. The value of t h e said parcel of

Rs.12,000/- and the said parcel was containing medicines. The booked

parcel did not reach the destination and the complainant approached the

opposite party No.1 to know about the non delivery of parcel and inspite

of several requests there was no response from opposite parties and

being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dated 06-09-2008

to both to opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No. 1 replied with

false allegations. As there is no other way the complainant has to

approach the forum for reliefs.

3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the

following documents viz., (1) courier receipt dated 20-08-2008 as to the

sending of consignment to Y. Thirumalamma , (2) office copy of legal

notice dated 06-09-2008 along with acknowledgement , (3) reply of

opposite party No. 1 dated 16-09-2008 to Ex.A2 and (4) a bunch of

seven receipts from 16-05-2008 to 25-05-2008 in favour of Y.

Thirumalamma , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in

reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents

are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case and replies to

the interrogatories exchanged.

4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of

the complainant the opposite party No. 1 appeared through their

standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version. The

opposite party No. 2 did not contested the case and were made exparte.

5. The written version of opposite party No. 1 denies the

complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that

it is clearly mentioned on the back side of the courier receipt condition

No. 9 (a) , any claimed has to be brought by the slipper and delivered in

writing to the office of AIR State nearest the location of which the

shipment was accepted within 30 days of the date of such acceptance.

No claims may be made against AIR State outside the time limit and the

complainant did not give any oral or written complaint to opposite party

No.1. It also submits that opposite party No. 1 explained at the time of

booking the cover and also mentioned on the back side of the courier

receipt condition NO. 5 , as t o any liability in case of loss or damage

shall not exceed for Rs.100/- only. The complainant at the time of

booking the cover must give a declaration and the complainant

manipulated medical bills and also prescriptions and seeks for the

dismissal of complaint with costs.

6. In support of their case the opposite party did not file any

documents and relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party and replies

to the interrogatories exchanged.

7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the

complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite

parties ?.

8. It is the simple case of the complainant that he booked a

parcel on 20-05-2008 with opposite party No. 1 vide Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 is

the courier receipt dated 20-05-2008 issued by opposite party No. 1

booked by consignor S.Suresh Babu , Kurnool to consignee

Y.Thirumalamma , Secunderabad, but the said parcel did not reach

the addressee i.e, Y. Thirumalamma and the said matter was put forth

by the complainant to opposite parties by addressing legal notice vide

Ex.A2. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 06-09-2008

addressed to opposite parties 1 and 2 by the counsel of the complainant

and the opposite party No. 1 replied vide Ex.A3. The Ex.A3 reply of

opposite party No. 1 dated 16-09-2008 to Ex.A2 says that the conditions

on back side of the courier receipts are explained to the complainant at

the time of booking and the claim must be made within in 30 days of the

date of booking and the parcel value was not declared by the

complainant and the opposite parties liability is limited to Rs.100/- as

per condition No. 5 in case of loss of parcel.

9. The complainant in support of his case relied on Ex.A4 bills

issued by Sri Srinivasa Medical and General stores to Y. Thirumalamma .

The complainant submits that the medicines purchased under Ex.A4 bills

are packed in the parcel booked by the complainant and the said

medicines worth Rs.12,000/- are lost in the transit and seeks for return

said amount , but there is nothing on record to show that the said

medicines purchased under Ex.A4 bills are packed in the said parcel on

20-05-2008. As there is no material to substantiate that the said lost

parcel contain the medicines purchased under Ex.A4, it cannot be said

that the lost parcel contained medicines purchased under Ex.A4. Hence,

the documents relied by the complainant cannot support his case and

cannot be relied upon.

10. The complainant in this case utterly failed to prove that the said

lost parcel contain medicines purchased under Ex.A4. But one thing

remains clear is that the parcel booked by the complainant under Ex.A1

is not delivered to the addressee and the same is admitted by the

opposite party No. 1 , but the opposite party No. 1 submitted that as

per terms and conditions printed on the back side of the courier receipts

in Ex.A1 restrictions their liability to Rs.100/- only , the said terms and

conditions are neither signed by the complainant nor there is any

evidence to show that the terms printed there in were shown to the

complainant or the same were agreed up on by the complainant . As per the decision of National Commission in Road Wings International

Vs Hindustan Caper Limited reported in 1999 (3) CPJ Pg.23,

where in it was held that when the cover note is not signed by

the consignor and the receipt did not constitute a special

contract and that the liability need not be limited to the sum

specified there in.

11. The complainant in this case did not sign the conditions of the

consignment , hence the liability of the opposite party limited to

Rs.100/- is rejected and the opposite party cannot escape their liability

to pay compensation to the complainant for non delivery of the parcel of

the complainant .

12. As already held that the complainant failed to prove that what he

has sent in the parcel but one thing is clear that the parcel is not

delivered to the addressee, hence there is liability on part of opposite

parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for non delivery of

parcel and Rs.500/- as costs.

13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for non delivery of parcel and Rs.500/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall pay the above award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.

 Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the  pen bench on this the 24th day of June, 2009.

LADY MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                      MALE MEMBER

                                       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                                     For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1. Courier receipt dated 20-05-2008 as to consignment

Addressed to Y. Tirumallamma.

.

Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 06-09-2008 along with

acknowledgement .

Ex.A3. Reply of opposite party No. 1 dated 16-09-2008 to Ex.A2.

Cond.,

- 6 -

Ex.A4. A bunch of 7 receipts from 16-05-2008 to 20-05-2008 in

favour of Y. Tirumallamma.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT                     MALE MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on

Cond.,

- 7 -