Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/276/2012

S. Govinda Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANL Parcel Services (A Joint venture with APSRTC) - Opp.Party(s)

K.V.S.V. Prasada Rao

03 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:31-08.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:03-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

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

     Lady Member 

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

                                     Male Member

 

                            Saturday, the 3^rd day of January, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.276/2012

Between:-

Sri Silla Govinda Rao, S/o late Bhavanarayana,

Hindu, aged 45 years, R/at D.No.19-18-2,

Rangireeju Street, near Poorna market,

Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.ANL Parcel Service (A Joint Venture with

   APSRTC), represented by its Branch Manager/

   Authorized Signatory, RTC Complex,

   Visakhapatnam.

2.ANL Parcel Service d(A Joint Venture with

   APSRTC), represented by its Regional Manager/

   Authorized Signatory,   D.No.5-9-30/1/5/b,

   Road No.4, Basheerbagh Palace Colony,

   Hyderabad-500 063.

3.Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,

   Represented by its Chairman, Hyderabad.

                                                                                        …  Opposite Parties    

                     

          This case coming on 17.12.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.V.S.V. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P. Rama Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and Sri J. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the 3^rd Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing them to return his cover or pay the cost of the cover of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of booking of the cover i.e., 21.06.2012 till the date of realization, and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are doing business as booking and taking the cover, packets and parcels etc., from the public at Complex areas by collecting the amounts basing on weight of the said articles and serving the same to the destination areas safely in our state and India with the assistance of the 3^rd Opposite Party for transport of those articles and that he booked one cover on 21.06.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.25/- at the office of the 1^st Opposite Party for sending it to one V. Gopala Krishna of Narasannapeta and the official of the 1^st Opposite Party issued a receipt in his favour but the said cover was not reached to the destination either on same day or on next day and the same was informed by said V. Gopala Krishna through phone.  The Complainant approached many times to the 1^st Opposite Party but the postponed the same one day pretext or the other and pending, he got issued a Registered Legal Notice on 27.06.2012 and when there was no response.   It is also his case that the contents of the cover is valuable certified copies with stamps and due to non serve of the said cover the said Gopala Krishna has not filed this documents in his case.    Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The case of the 1^st Opposite Party adopted by the 2^nd Opposite Party is that the Complainant booked a cover to be delivered to one Gopala Kirshna of Narasannapeta and the same was sealed by the Complainant and while booking the cover asked him with regard to the contents of the cover and it is value but the Complainant did not disclose the same.   As per the norms of the company and as per the terms of the contract if the values of the contents are not disclosed, they are liable only for Rs.100/- in the event of loss of the cover.   This also stated they received a Legal Notice and sent a reply and as the Complainant did not disclose the contents of the cover or its value of the contents in the cover, he is entitled for any compensation.   Further the Complainant did not file any documents with regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/- the non delivery is in the mis-major and as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation and final stated the Complainant is only entitled for Rs.100/- as per the contract entered between them.

 

4.       The case of the 3^rd Opposite Party denying all the material averments of the Complainant is that they have no knowledge about the transaction with a malafied intention they were added a party.   Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant he filed his sworn evidence affidavit.     On the other hand, on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party   Manager of its office filed his sworn affidavit.   Whereas on behalf of the 3^rd Opposite Party their Law Officer filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A10.   No documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

6.       Ex.A1 is the Courier Receipt dated 21.06.2012.  Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Parties on 20.07.2012.   Ex.A3 is the 3 Postal Receipts dated 21.07.2012.   Ex.A4 is the Acknowledgement of 1^st Opposite Party dated 23.07.2012.   Ex.A5 is the Acknowledgement of the 2^nd Opposite Party dated 23.07.2012.   Ex.A6 is the Acknowledgement dated 29.07.2012.  Ex.A7 is the Office copy of letter from the 2^nd Opposite Party dated 24.07.2012.    Ex.A8 is the attested copy of Rejoinder letter issued by the Complainant’s counsel to 3^rd Opposite Party dated 30.07.2012.   Ex.A9 is the Postal Receipt dated 30.07.2012.   Ex.A10 is the Acknowledgement Card dated 30.07.2012.    On the other hand, No documents were marked for the Opposite Parties.

 

7.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  

 

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

 

9.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for:

 

10.     As seen from record, it is not in dispute that the Complainant booked a cover on 21.06.2012 with the 1^st Opposite Party to be delivered at present of Narasannapeta of Srikakulam District and the cover was not delivered and after receiving information from the Complainant, they made efforts to trace the cover but could traced.    In spite of their efforts and on that the Complainant gave a Legal Notice and that the Complainant booked a cover on 21.06.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.25/- for which a receipt was passed vide Ex.A1.   According to the Complainant non-serving of the said cover to the Opposite Parties comes under definition it deficiency of service and since the contents of the cover is valuable certified copies with stamps, he claimed Rs.10,000/-.   According to the Opposite Parties as per the norms of the company and terms of the contract if the value of the contents are not disclosed, they are liable only Rs.100/- in the event of the loss of the cover and the same is mentioned on the rare side of Ex.A1.

 

11.     Admittedly cover was not delivered sent by the Complainant to one Gopala Krishna of Narasannapeta even efforts made by the Opposite Parties.   Now it is to be seen whether there are norms of the company while delivering the cover parcels etc., in the event of their loss.   At this juncture, it is relevant for me to draw my attention to Ex.A1 in respect of document, weight, declared value and the terms and conditions agreed between both parties.   On a careful perusal of Ex.A1 dated 21.06.2012 it is an evident that the consigners of the signature i.e., the Complainant herein and the Opposite Parties’ signature are find place therein below the declaration.    Ex.A1 is clearly goes to show that the amount charged is Rs.25/- and the Complainant herein has not disclosed the nature of the documents, weight and value etc., therein.   It is also noted above the consigner signature that “we declared that the consignment does it contain Cash Jewellery, Passport, Air Ticket, Tender or any prohibited item.   We agree to the terms and conditions mentioned overleaf and accept that in the event of loss damage delay, non-delivery the maximum liability of the company is only Rs.100/-.   The other terms and conditions are noted back side of Ex.A1 and they are 1 to 8.      

 

12.     Now coming to the case on hand this very clear that the Complainant has not disclosed that the cover is valuable certified copies that stamps etc.   if really the Complainant sent those documents referred supra.   We do not understand of the prevented him to mention the same in Ex.A1 on scrutiny of Ex.A1 coupled with the averments on record, we are of the considered view that as an afterthought he came forward with such a plea as an afterthought which cannot entertain.    For these reasons, we hold that the contention of the Complainant that he sent under Ex.A1 worth of Rs.10,000/- stamps as no legs to stand.    

 

13.     It is an admitted fact that the covers sent Ex.A1 was not delivered to Gopala Krishna  of Narasannapeta therefore, it can be held that there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the point an issue involved, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.500/- with interest from the date of booking of cover i.e., 21.06.2012 till the date of realization @ 12% p.a. to the Complainant for non delivering of the cover sent vide Ex.A1.

 

14.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is in commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licenced to claim interest @ 24% p.a. on Ex.A1.    But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 12% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 12% p.a. on Ex.A1 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

 

15.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award and compensation of 2,500/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.2,500 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

 

16.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.10,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Party within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

17.     In the result, this Complainant is allowed in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of the cover of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from 21.06.12 till the date of realization, and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) and costs of Rs.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 3^rd day of January, 2015.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                               Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                     President

                            

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	21.06.2012	Courier receipt	Original
Ex.A02	20.07.2012	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by Complainant’s counsel to Ops	Office copy
Ex.A03	21.07.2012	3 Postal Receipts	Original
Ex.A04	23.07.2012	Acknowledgement of 1st OP	Original
Ex.A05	23.07.2012	Acknowledgement of 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A06	29.07.2012	Acknowledgement of 3rd OP	Original
Ex.A07	24.07.2012	Letter from the 2nd OP	Office copy
Ex.A08	30.07.2012	Rejoinder letter issued by Complainant’s counsel to 3rd OP	Attested copy
Ex.A09	30.07.2012	Postal Receipt	Original
Ex.A10	30.07.2012	Acknowledgement card	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-               

                                      -Nil-

     Sd/-                                Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                      President