BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Friday the13 th day of August, 2007
C.C. No.25/2007
K. Venkatesh, S/o. K. Venkata Swamy, Hindusthan Co-cola Beverages Private Limited
Nandyal, Kurnool District, A.P. … COMPLAINANT
Verses
- Branch Manager, ANL Parcel Service
R.T.C.Bustand, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
2) Proprietor, ANL Parcel Service,
3-5-874/6/5, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-500 029. … OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, Sri.C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No.1, and opposite party 2 called absent and set exparte upon the persuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member )
1. This consumer complainat of the complainant is filed Under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite parties to retrun the unserved to the complainant, to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation , cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the ciucumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant on 12.2.2005 booked a cover to his father K. Venkata Swamy , kadapa containing original S.S.C.Certificate, Intermediate Certificate and T.C vide receipt No.12444524, but the said cover did not reach the addresse. Hence, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to trace out his cover but no appropriate action was taken by opposite parties to trace out the cover. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 2.2.2007 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties did not reply . Hence there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) courier receipt dated 12.2.2005 and (2)office copy of legal notice dated 2.2.2007 along with two courier receipts, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and replied to the interrogatories of opposite party No.1
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the oppoisite party No.2 remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte. The opposite party No.1 contested the case through their standing counsel and filed written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 admits the complaint has booked a cover through the opposite parties service from Nandyal under consignment No.12444524 dated 12.2.2005 to deliver at kadapa and submits that the complainant did not reveal the contents of the envelope at the time of booking that , it contains original S.S.C.Certificate, Intermediate Certificate and T.C . The said cover in question was lost/mis placed and the opposite parties tried their level to trace out the cover, but in vain. It also submits that forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it is clear in shippers copy that “subject to Hyderabad Jurisdiction only”. On receiving the information that the cover contained original certificates the opposite party No.1 loadged a complaint on 23.3.2005 with police and obtained a certificate to that effect and as per conditions on certified copy note in the event of loss/damage/delay the maximum liability is only Rs.100/- and lastly seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) xerox copy of certificate issued by Station House Office, Nandyal I Town police station dated 23.3.2005, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his written version avernments and the above document is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.1 replied to the interrogatories of complainant and caused interrogatories to the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?
8. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a cover with opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A1 dated 12.2.2005 containing original S.S.C.certificate, Intermediate certificate and T.C addressed to his father at kadapa and the said cover did not reach kadapa and the said matter was brought before the opposite party No.1 who stated that the said cover is misplaced/lost and lodged a complaint with police and obtained a certificate to that effect in order to obtain duplicate copies of said certificates. No doubt the opposite parties have lodged a complainant with police but it got into concern with the deficiency of service as stated above in this complaint.
9. The Ex.A1 is courier receipt dated 12.2.2005 it envisages the booking of a cover by the complainant and from the pleadings of the parties there is no denial that the
cover booked at Nandyal was not delivered to the addresse and the opposite party in their avernment admitted that the said cover was lost in the transit. Hence the deficiency in service by opposite parties is well proved and it is clear that due to negligence and carelessness of the opposite parties the said cover was lost/missing. Therefore, opposite party is liable for the said deficiency.
10. The claim of the opposite party that Kurnool District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case has got no leg to stand because the opposite party has got a branch at Kurnool. The other claim of the opposite party that there was a period printed terms and conditions that liability if any will be only to the tune of Rs.100/- also has got no leg to stand because the lost the cover containing original S.S.C. Certificate, Intermediate Certificate and T.C and the complainant did not sign the condition accepting it. Hence, cannot be relied by opposite parties. The complainant opted for courier service for prompt delivery of the cover . However, the claim of Rs.25,000/- as compensation is without any basis and the compensation is estimated to Rs.2,000/- which will be adequate for the loss and mental anxiety and agony to the complainant.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to return to the complainant the unserved cover on its tracel and to pay Rs.2,000/- and 1,000/- towards compensation and costs respectively within a month of receipt of this order. In default, the supra stated award shall be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench this the 13th day of July, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1.Courier service receipt dated 12.2.2005.
Ex.A2.Office copy of legal notice dated 12.2.2007 along with two
Courier receipts.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. xerox copy of certificate issued station house office,
Nandyal.I Town police station, dated 23.3.2005.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.C. Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
