Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/52/2015

Pettigani Radhakrishna Murthy, s/o. Late Narayana Swami - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANL, parcel service - Opp.Party(s)

M.Subrahmantam,J.Srinivas,M.V.S.Ajaykumar

22 Feb 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing     :02-02-2015

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:22-02-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the 22^nd  day of   February, 2016

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                            

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.52/2015

 

Shiridi Baba Textiles, Wholesale Cloth Merchants,

Shop No.12, APC Market, Kavali,

Represented by Pettigani  Radhakrishna Murthy,

S/o.Late Narayana Swami,

Aged about 52 years, Hindu,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                                                ..… Complainant

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	ANL Parcel Service, Claims Department, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.
2.	ANL Parcel Service, Represented by it’s Agent, Kavali.                                                                                   ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 09-02-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri J. Srinivas, advocate for the complainant and                                                                     Sri B.Sreenivasa Rangarajan,   advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally  Rs.2,30,000/- with subsequent interest being the compensation to the  complainant

2.         The complainant is having wholesale cloth shop in Kavali. The second opposite party is an agent of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant handed over to cloth bundles worth Rs.63,000/- under Goods Consignment numbers 08818778 and 08818779  from Kavali to Kuppam on 17-04-2012 to two parties having shops titled as Vandanas and Kalanjali, Big Bazar to 2^nd opposite party for being sent to Kuppam.  But, both bundles were not delivered to the concerned parties and on enquiry the two parcels were missed and the said two bundles were mixed in the circle of opposite parties. The complainant wrote a letter to 1^st opposite party on 24-05-2012 and 24-06-2013, but there was no reply. The complainant got issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party on                  22-09-2014 calling upon him to pay Rs.63,000/- within a week from the date of demand notice, but there is no reply from them. Since the said goods not reached the addressee, he incurred huge loss of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of purchasing another goods and sent to the parties. Due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant prays to direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of cloth of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/-(totally claimed Rs.2,30,000/-). Hence the complaint.

3.         On the other hand, the opposite parties filed counter/written version denying all the averments made in the complaint except that of admitted certain facts. The opposite parties contented that the complainant handed over two bundles worth Rs.63,000/- under Goods Consignment numbers 08818778 and 08818779 from Kavali to Kuppam on 17-04-2012.The opposite parties further contented that the complainant is not a consumer but a trader because he is doing whole sale cloth business under the name and style of Shirdi Baba Textiles, cloth merchant. The consignments were truly dispatched from their office but they were not reached to the destination due to the circumstances beyond their control. Further, the opposite parties contented that the complainant has not insured the parcels. Further, this consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because as per the terms and conditions of the Goods Consignment Note , all the disputes are subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction only. Further ,the complaint is barred by limitations as the transactions took place in the year 17^th April,2012. But , the complainant filed the complaint before this forum on 3^rd June , 2015i.e, after lapse of              3 years. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, the opposite parties contented that they are not aware of the contents of the consignment as they were booked and transported in a packed and sealed condition. As per the terms and conditions of Goods Consignment Note, in the event of loss/damage/non-delivery of the parcel ,the liability of the party shall be limited to Rs.5/- per kg of the weight containing therein. Accordingly, the complainant was signed on the Goods Consignment Note having agreed the terms and conditions. Moreover, the commercial transactions are not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence the opposite parties are not liable for alleged compensation as claimed in the complaint and as there is no deficiency of service, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.         The 2^nd  opposite party filed a memo adopting the written version of the 1^st  opposite party.

5.         The points for determination would be:

1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service? If so, whether    the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the complaint?

 

2. To what relief ?

6.         The complainant filed evidence on affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A11. On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit as R.W.1 but no exhibits marked on their behalf.

7.         POINT NO.1:  The contention of the opposite parties are that the complainant is a business man and hence not a consumer.   It was further contented that this forum has no jurisdiction as the complainant is not a consumer. Further, the complaint is not mainatainable as it is barred by limitation .

8.         On perusal of material part of records, it is disclosed that since the complainant availed services provided by the 2^nd opposite party by collecting the freight charges for transportation hence he is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act under Section 21 (d). The said section defines the consumer as a person, who hires or avails services for consideration. In the present case, the opposite party provided parcel service for consideration. The opposite parties are service providers. The complainant availed the service by paying the necessary freight charges for transporting his material from Nellore to Kuppam. Therefore the complainant is a Consumer within the meaning of the Act. As such this forum has  got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the cause of action took place at Nellore. Further with regard to limitation, this forum already decided the matter on 01-06-2015 on merits in I.A.No.19/2015  on the file of this forum by condoning the delay and numbered the case as C.C.No.52/2015. Hence the objections raised by the opposite parties are not sustained.

 

9.         With regard to other aspects on merits it is an admitted fact that opposite party admitted the booking of the consignment. Exs.A3 and A4 are consignment notes bearing No 08818778 and 08818779 to Kuppam which are receipts to testify the same. The value of the both consignment notes are Rs.63,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.399/-             towards freight charges. The opposite parties admitted that they received the letters dated 24-05-2012 and 24-06-2013. It is an admitted fact that the consignments did not reach the addressee, the 2^nd opposite party contented that they are not liable since the parcels were booked at owner’s risk. They are further contented that if the contents of the consignments are valuable, the complainant ought to have insured the same before booking the parcels but he has not done.  No steps taken by the opposite parties in investigating the matter except stating that the loss of goods beyond their control.  Further, the 2^nd opposite party replied in the written version alleging that the complaint is barred by limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction which are baseless. However, the law is not so. Once the service providers received the goods for disposals with a specific direction bailment steps in. Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party failed to discharge his duty as a bailee. Non-delivery of consignment is a deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. Under these circumstances especially in view of the categorical admission made by the opposite parties in their written version about the missing of the consignment ,we have no hesitation to hold that the two consignments were misplaced in the transit and the same were not traced.

 

10.       For all the above said facts and circumstances in our considered view, the consignments were lost due to the negligence act of opposite parties and the opposite parties are therefore liable to pay the value of the consignment of Rs. 63,000/- to the complainant along with interest besides the consignment freight charges. Since we are granting interest on value of the consignment from the date of complaint i.e,  02-02-2015                     we are not inclined to award any compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the acts of opposite parties.  With regard to enhancement
of price from Rs.63,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, the complainant has not filed any documentary proof of raising prices of goods as per market value in support of his allegation. In the absence of the same, the version of the complainant cannot be believed. Hence the cost of cloth raising to Rs.2,00,000/- as per market value is disallowed as there is no proof of document to that extent. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

 

11.       POINT No.2: In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.63,000/- (Rupees sixty three thousand only) i.e., the value of both consignments along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint   i.e., 02-02-2015 till the date of realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are also further directed to pay the freight charges of Rs.399/- (Rs.200/-+Rs.199/-) (Rupees  three hundred and ninty nine only) besides the costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 22^nd day of  February, 2016.

 

 

 

             Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

15-09-2015

Sri P. Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o.Late Narayan Swami, Trader, Nellore District (Deposition filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

17-12-2015

Sri G. Suresh Kumar,Agent,ANL Parcel Service, A.P.S.R.T.C.Bus Stand compound, Kavali (Chief Affidavit filed)

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	17-04-2012	Photocopy of  Bill No.16 issued by the complainant for  Rs.32,060/-  in favour of Kalanjali Big Bazar, Kuppam.
Ex.A2  -	17-04-2012	Photocopy of  Bill No.22 issued by the complainant for  Rs.30,940/-  in favour of Vandanas, Kuppam.
Ex.A3  -	-	Photocopy  of  courier receipt  for Rs.199/- in favour of  Vandanas, Kuppam  in  goods consignment note No.08818778.
Ex.A4  -	-	Photocopy  of  courier receipt  for Rs.200/- in favour of  Kalanjali Big Bazar, Kuppam  in  goods consignment note No.08818779.
Ex.A5  -	24-05-2012	Photocopy of letter addressed by the complainant to the  Claims Department, ANL Parcel Service, Head Office, Hyderabad.
Ex.A6  -	24-06-2013	Letter addressed by the complainant to the  Claims Department, ANL Parcel Service,  Hyderabad.
Ex.A7  -	24-06-2013	One  registered post receipt  addressed  to the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A8  -	-	One postal acknowledgement sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A9  -	22-09-2014	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate :                        B. Venu Madhav, Kavali to the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A10  -	24-09-2014	One registered post receipt addressed to the opposites party No.1 sent by the complainant’s advocate:M. Bhagya Lakshmi, Kavali.
Ex.A11  -	-	One postal acknowledgement  received from the opposite party No.1 sent by the complainant’s advocate:M. Bhagya Lakshmi, Kavali.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

                                                 

                                                                                                                       Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri J. Srinivas, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri B.Sreenivasa Rangarajan, Advocate, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: