DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President
Smt.S.Lalitha, Member, M.A., M.L.,
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Friday, the 29th day of October, 2010
C.C.NO.107/2010
Between:
M.Sainath
S/o Late M.V. Rao
Retired Lecturer in English
D.No.23/23, Sainagar
Dharmavaram,
Anantapur District. …Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager
ANL Parcel Services
A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand Premises
Dharmavaram Town
Anantapur District.
- The Manager,
ANLParcel Services
D.No.5-9-30-5-B
Road No.4, Basheerbagh Plaza
Hyderabad – 63. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu and Sri K.Jagadeeswar Reddy, advocates for the complainant and Sri N.Ravi Kumar Reddy, advocate opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.S.Lalitha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.14,548/-, which includes Rs.4,048/- towards the cost of Shirdi Sai Baba Photos, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint with interest @ 18% p.a. from 27-03-2010 till the date of realization
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is resident of Dharmavaram town and the 1st opposite party is Branch Office situated at Dharmavaram and the 2nd opposite party is the Manager of ANL Parcel Office situated at Hyderabad. The complainant has been sending Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Photos to devotees throughout Andhra Pradesh at their request for cost. One P.H.Reddy a devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba residing in plot No.5 Vijayasanthi Enclave, behind Cine Planet, Kompalli, Secundrabad requested the complainant to send 6 big Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Photos immediately as they were thinking to organize a function. Accordingly, the complainant took photos from R.K. Colour Lab for the cost of Rs.4,048/- on 20-03-2010. R.K. Colour Lab issued a bill for Rs.4,048/- towards the cost of photos. The complainant sent Shri Shirdi Sai Baba big photos to Mr.P.H.Reddy’s address as stated above through the 1st opposite party on 27-03-2010. The 1st opposite party issued a receipt bearing No.ANT-1489082 to the complainant. The opposite parties have not delivered the said photos to the consignee and he was asked to go and collect the courier parcel from M.G. Bus Stand and Jubilee Bus Stand, Hyderabad and the parcel was not delivered to the addressee so far. Knowing this the complainant wrote a letter on 19-06-2010 to the 2nd opposite party bringing all the facts to the opposite parties notice, but so far no reply from the opposite parties. Again the complainant gave notice on 30-06-2010 to the opposite parties through Dharmavaram Consumer Welfare Society and Protection Council requesting the opposite parties to settle the matter. But there was no reply from the opposite parties. Finally legal notice was given on 26-07-2010 for taking steps regarding tracing of parcel. The complainant submits that himself and P.H.Reddy consignee suffered inexplicable mental agony as the parcel did not reach in time. Hence, the complainant claims Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and costs of Shirdi Sai Baba Photos worth of Rs.4,048/- and costs of the complaint of Rs.500/- from the opposite parties 1 & 2 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 27-03-2010 till the date of realization for the negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 & 2.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations and contended that the complainant purchased 6 big size Baba Photos from R.K.Colour Lab and booked with this opposite party is not true. He submits that the complainant filed bill of R.K. Colour Labs for Rs.4,048/- but the bill does contain 6 photos, more over it contains 32 photos. Further this opposite party submits that nowhere the bill contains 6 number of big size photos and the bill date is also altered. The opposite parties opposed the bill as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. There are no grounds in the complaint. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant did not disclose either about the goods or value of the goods while booking the consignment. The liability of the opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions of the company rules. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 &
2? If so whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as claimed in the
complaint from the opposite parties 1 & 2.
2. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed as PW1 and also evidence on affidavit of the witness of the complainant has been filed as PW2 and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and no documents have been marked on behalf of the 1st opposite party. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of 2nd opposite party has not been filed and no documents have been marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1 - The complainant is resident of Dharmavaram town and having habit of sending Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Photos to devotees throughout Andhra Pradesh at their request for cost. One P.H.Reddy a devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba residing in Secundrabad requested the complainant to send 6 big size Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Photos immediately as they were thinking to organize a function. Accordingly, the complainant took photos from R.K. Colour Lab for the cost of Rs.4,048/- and sent the same through 1st opposite party on 27-03-2010 to the said P.H.Reddy’s address at Secunderabad and to that effect, he obtained receipt bearing No.ANT-1489082. The consignment did not reach to the consignee. After knowing that the parcel did not reach the consignee, the complainant wrote letter to the 2nd opposite party bringing all the facts to the notice of the opposite parties, but there was no reply and the complainant again issued notice through Dharmavaram Consumer Welfare Society and Protection Council. As there was no reply, the complainant constrained to issue legal notice to the opposite parties. The complainant took all efforts and brought the facts to the notice of the opposite parties and requested them to trace out the parcel and give back. But all the efforts of the complainant went in vain. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum claiming a sum of Rs.14,548/- under different heads. The opposite parties denied all the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite parties accept that the consignment was booked with them and they submit that they have no knowledge about the contents in the parcel. As the complainant did not mention the value, he can not claim the bill amount of Rs.4,048/- and disputed the bill Ex.A1.
9. Here the complainant filed bill under Ex.A1 for Rs.4,048/- stating that it was the value of the consignment. In the complaint, he stated that he booked 6 Nos. of Sri Shirdi Sai Baba Photos to the consignee’s address, but the bill containing No. of items and different sizes. The said objection took by the opposite parties in their counter. On perusal of bill Ex.A1, it is noticed that there is no item 6 in number and all the other items are in different sizes. Hence, the bill can not be taken into consideration. The objection of the opposite parties is tenable and the claim of the bill amount by the complainant is not considered.
10. There is no dispute regarding booking of the consignment by the complainant with the opposite parties on 27-03-2010. It is true that he booked the consignment with the opposite parties under receipt bearing No. ANT-1489082 to one P.H. Reddy of Secunderabad address. Ex.A2 is Consignment Receipt. But the said parcel did not reach the party, which was supposed to hand over to him. By knowing the fact that the parcel was not reached to the assigned place, the complainant took all the efforts to consult the opposite parties and to recover the parcel. He wrote letter under Ex.A3 to the 2nd opposite party on19-06-2010 bringing all the facts to the notice of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to reply for the same. On 13-06-2010 the complainant again issued a notice under Ex.A4 through Consumer Welfare Society, Dharmavaram , for that also the opposite parties did not respond. Finally on 26-07-2010 a legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties, for that also they did not take any steps either to give reply or to hand over the consignment to the complainant or to the consignee. This shows the negligent attitude of the opposite parties towards consumer. The consumers book any consignment through parcel service with a hope that they will deliver the same safely and quickly. But here the opposite parties failed either to deliver the parcel to the consignee or to give back to the complainant/consignor. Though the complainant brought about the missing of parcel to the notices of the opposite parties through correspondence on 19-06-2010 and notices on 30-06-2010 and on 26-07-2010, the opposite parties did not respondent for any one. The opposite parties failed to prove what efforts they have taken to trace out the parcel. This shows the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, which causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for mental agony. As the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service, they have to compensate to the complainant. Here, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, but under the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.2,000/- is granted towards mental agony. Accordingly this point is answered.
11. POINT NO.2 - In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony to the complainant with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.250/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of booking of the consignment i.e. 27-03-2010 till the date of realization. The said amounts shall be payable by the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 29th day of October, 2010.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original Bill No.1945 dt.20-03-2007 for Rs.4,048/- issued by R.K. Colour Lab &
Studio, Anantapur in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 - Consignment Receipt dt.27-03-2010 issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of letter dt.19-06-2010 sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite
party.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of notice dt.30-06-2010 issued by Dharmavaram Consumer’s
Welfare Society & Protection Council, Dharmavaram to the opposite parties.
Ex.A5 - Office copy of legal notice dt.26-07-2010 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A6 - Postal acknowledgments signed by the opposite parties 1 & 2.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
