This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      21-03-11 in the presence of Sri J.Sai Raju, advocate for complainant and of Sri J.Narasimha Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.31,080/- towards worth of the consignment with interest at 24% p.a. along with damages of Rs.20,000/- and for costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant sent a parcel on 24-12-09 by paying Rs.88/- containing Rs.31,080/- worth of sarees and under garments of ladies through ANL Parcel Service at Guntur Bus Station to deliver at Tanuku branch and took receipt bearing No.90028361.  

                The said consignment was not delivered to the complainant at Tanuku branch and they said that they did not receive the parcel from Guntur itself.  The complainant gave written representation on 30-12-09 with a demand either to deliver the parcel or to pay the consignment amount.  But there is no proper response from opposite party. Finally the complainant issued notice               dt.18-01-10 to opposite party but invain.  The opposite party being responsible to deliver the parcel, they neither delivered nor handed over the same to complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite party filed its version which in brief as follows:

                The complainant booked parcel consignment containing sarees and under garments of ladies at Guntur branch office of opposite party in RTC Bus Stand Complex to deliver the same at Tanuku on 24-12-09.  The consignment dispatched from Guntur through APSRTC Bus No.AP28Z-4884 dt.24-12-09 for delivery at Tanuku was not handover by the crew staff and due to that the opposite party reported the same to APSRTC officials for enquiry and the same is pending.  The complainant did not inform the consignment value as Rs.31,080/- as mentioned in complaint or no invoice or bill was submitted by complainant at the time of booking of consignment and in fact it was mentioned in goods consignment note value of consignment as Rs.1000/-. In order to have wrongful gain, the complainant is now falsely mentioned the value as Rs.31,080/-.  The opposite party sent reply notice on 22-01-10 to the notice of complainant dt.18-01-10.    

                As per terms and conditions of PR, the claim in respect of non-delivery and shortage of goods should be informed within seven days from the date of incident and also all claims should be preferred to Head Office in writing within 60 days of booking date or 30 days from the date of delivery which is earlier.  In the present case, the complainant informed the opposite party in respect of non-delivery of consignment on 18-01-10 after lapse of more than 25 days.  As per terms and conditions of PR on no account the value of consignment booked under PR should exceed 50 kg. weight and as per that condition the opposite party can not be made liable not exceeding Rs.5000/- and due to that the claim of complainant is not sustainable as per law.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

4.             Both parties have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant alleged that the parcel worth Rs.31,080/- sent through ANL Parcel office at RTC Bus Stand, Guntur on 24-12-09 to deliver at Tanuku Bus Station was found not delivered at Tanuku  Bus Stand.  On 30-12-09 the complainant gave written representation with a demand either to deliver or to pay the worth of consignment and also legal notice on 18-01-10.

8.             The opposite party counsel admitted in their affidavit that consignment containing sarees and under garments dispatched from Guntur through APSRTC Bus No.AP28Z-4884 dt.24-12-09 for delivery at Tanuku was not handed over by the crew staff and the same was reported to APSRTC officials for enquiry and the same is pending. 

9.             The opposite party submitted in their version that 50 kgs. of consignment would not cost more than Rs.5000/- is observed by the Forum.

10.           The complainant filed bills for Rs.31,080/- but they were not submitted at the time of consignment. In Ex.A1 goods consignment note value of consignment was mentioned as Rs.1000/-.   In affidavit, the opposite party stated that the complainant booked a parcel containing sarees and under garments of ladies.  In the absence of any documentary evidence such as invoice/bills showing the value of consignment sent through opposite party awarding a sum of Rs.5000/- will meet ends of justice.  

11.           On perusal of records, we opine that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as consignment value with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation for damages and Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant.
3. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amounts ordered in item No.2 shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. till the date of realization.   

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of March, 2011.

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT          

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite party :     NIL

                                                                                         PRESIDENT