Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.8354/- towards short delivery; Rs.885/- being the interest @24% p.a.; Rs.10,000/- towards compensation; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The complainant is running small scale industry under the name and style of Amrutha Metal Industries, Guntur.   On 24-05-12 the complainant purchased 192 kgs of Aluminium ingots from M/s Sakunthala Industries, Odissa for Rs.25,459/-.  On the same day the complainant entrusted those 192 kgs (ingots) to the 1^st opposite party to be delivered at 2^nd opposite party’s place.   On 16-06-12 the opposite party intimated about receiving of the said material from the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant received and verified the same in the presence of the 2^nd opposite party and found ingots weighing 129 kgs instead of 192 kgs.   The 2^nd opposite party endorsed the delivery of 129 kgs only on the backside of the delivery bill.   Thus there was shortage of 63 kgs of aluminium ingots.   The opposite parties gave evasive replies for several demands and notices of the complainant.   Delivering less weight of consignment amounted to deficiency of service.   On account of short delivery the complainant faced severe financial problems.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant has no locus standi to file a complaint as he did not disclose his relationship with M/s Amrutha Metal Industries.    On 16-06-12 persons from Amrutha Metals came to the office of the 2^nd opposite party; verified the consignment transported by M/s Shakuntala Alluminium Private Limited, Angul; after verification of papers the 2^nd opposite party handedover the consignment to them.   The persons from M/s Amrutha Metals verified and satisfied after proper weighing; signed on the delivery voucher and took away the material.   If really aluminuim ingots were missing the persons from M/s Amrutha Metals should not have taken delivery.   The 2^nd opposite party is responsible for missing of material as long as is in its possession.   Persons from M/s Amrutha Metals received the consignment without protest.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented to suit his case.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B-1 on behalf of                     2^nd opposite party were marked.  

6.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the OP2 committed deficiency of service by short delivery?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.3,000/- towards legal expenses?
6. To what relief?

7.  Admitted facts in this complaint are these:

          1. M/s Amrutha Metal Industries entrusted a consignment weighing                      192 kgs with the 1^st opposite party to be delivered at the                                 address of the 2^nd opposite party (Ex.A-2).

          2. The complainant also furnished way bill (Ex.A-3).

3. The OP1 issued lorry receipt (Ex.A-5 = B1).

4. Value of the consignment was Rs.25,459/- (Ex.A-1).

5. The complaint got issued registered notice to the opposite parties                     (Exs.A-6 to A-9).

8.  POINT No.1:-    While registering the complaint the office took an objection regarding maintainability of the complaint as occupation of the complainant was shown as business.   For that the complainant corrected and mentioned as detailed infra:

“It is submitted that the complainant is doing small scale industry under the name and style of Amrutha Metal Industries, O/o D.No.16-30-64/11, 1^st lane, Laxmi Nagar, Suddapalli Donka, Guntur district for his livelihood.”

          The complainant made the said correction also in the affidavit filed along with the complaint.   But in his evidence affidavit filed on 27-06-13 the complainant mentioned the following:

                    “I further submit that I am doing Aluminium business under the        name           and style of Amrutha Industries, O/o D.No.16-30-64/11,

          1^st lane, Laxmi Nagar, Suddapalli Donka, Guntur”.  

          The phrase ‘running small scale industry for his livelihood’ did not find place in the evidence affidavit of the complainant.   The complainant in our considered opinion mentioned those words in the complaint and affidavit filed along with it so a to confer jurisdiction on this Forum.   Absence of those specific phrases in chief affidavit of the complainant filed on 26-07-13 raised a serious doubt regarding the nature of business of complainant.

          Therefore, in our considered opinion the complainant miserably failed to show that he is a consumer within the explanation to section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.   Therefore we opine that that complainant is not a consumer and cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Forum.

9.  POINT No.2:   Ex.A-5=B1 is the lorry receipt.   One N. Srinivas took delivery of the consignment as seen from the endorsement on the reverse of Ex.B-1.   One N. Ajay Kumar filed evidence affidavit.   The said Ajay Kumar in his affidavit mentioned that he received and verified the consignment in the presence of 2^nd opposite party and surprisingly it was only 129 kgs instead of 192 kgs and 63 kgs of aluminium ingots was missing.   The said contention of the complainant cannot be believed as one N. Srinivas endorsed the receipt of the consignment on the reverse of Ex.B-1.   The complainant did not file the affidavit of the said Srinivas before this Forum.   Nothing was mentioned on the receipt of Ex.B-1 to show that there was short delivery of 63 kgs.   On the other hand, the complainant relied on the endorsement made on the reverse of Ex.A-1 ‘129 kgs’ signed by one Rama Rao on 16-06-12.   The complainant did not chose to file the affidavit of the said Rama Rao also who said to have been made that endorsement.                    Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the 2^nd opposite party delivered consignment short of 63 kgs as the complainant failed to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

10.  POINTS 3 to 5:-   In view of findings on point No.2, the complainant is not entitled to any amount towards damages and mental agony and or legal expenses.   We therefore, answer these points infavour of the opposite parties.

11.  POINT No.6:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 19^th day of March, 2014.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:  

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.