BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1788/2007 against C.C. 19/2007, Dist. Forum, Khammam.

Between:

Srisaila Mallikarjuna Travels

Prop.  S. Ramadevi

Near DRDA Office

Khammam (T)

Present Address:

S. Ramadevi

H.No. 9-135, Seetharampuram

Miryalaguda, Nalgonda (Dist)                     ***                           Appellant/

                                                                                                  Complainant.

                                                                   And

1) Chennupati  Rama Kotaiah Lorry Transport

Massid Lane, Canal Road

Vijayawada.

2)  Chennupati Rama Kotaiah Lorry Transport

Autonagar, Vijayawada

3)  Chennupati Rama Kotaiah Lorry Transport

Gandhi Chowk Branch Office

Khammam.                                                 ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops.  

Counsel for the  Appellant:                :         M/s. K. Visveswara Rao  

Counsel for the Respondent:             :         Served.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA,  MEMBER.

    &

                                 SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER.
                  

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DEAY OF  MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                The  complainant  preferred this appeal seeking modification of the order of the Dist. Forum  by directing the opposite parties to return the articles that were booked, pay penalty of Rs. 25,000/- paid by her to APSRTC and loss of Rs. 10,000/-sustained by her together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that  she was running five buses on hire to APSRTC from  Khammam to Kodada on behalf of the APSRTC.    She had to get the buses serviced every year for which she  would be given four days.  In the said period  she had to rectify the mechanical and  any other problems  and then only  she  would be permitted to run the buses.    Accordingly she purchased some body building material  at Vijayawada  and entrusted to  the  respondent carriers at Vijayawada to hand it over at her office at Khammam  by paying  Rs. 125/-  on 19.5.2004.   She did not receive the said articles.  She had contacted them several times through phone and personally etc.  at last by  letter Dt.  6.6.2004, however, they did not respond.   Since she could not get the buses re-conditioned for non-supply of  the machinery parts  by the respondent, APSRTC imposed a fine  of  Rs. 500/- per bus per day and also incurred damages of Rs. 200/-  per bus.    She had sustained a loss of Rs. 35,000/-.    Therefore she claimed for return of the articles entrusted to it besides  Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty imposed by APSRTC and  Rs. 10,000/- towards loss sustained by her together with interest, compensation and costs. 

3)                The respondent resisted the case pleading that they were not aware that the complainant was running the buses on hire  with APSRTC and that she had to get the buses re-conditioned every  year etc.    However, they admitted that  bus body building material  were booked for transportation  to her office at  Khammam on  19.5.2004.    In fact immediately after booking    items were delivered.  In order to gain  illegally   after a lapse of  more than two years, they received complaint from her demanding return of  articles.    At no time, they had received any notice for non-delivery of items.   They never received letter Dt.   6.6.2004.  For all these years there was no complaint.    They  not keep the receipts only for one year.   She did not file any proof that she had paid penalty of Rs. 25,000/- to APSRTC  and sustained loss of Rs. 10,000/-.    Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence  and filed the documents, while the opposite party No. 3 filed affidavit evidence of its Manager reiterating the very same facts mentioned in the counter.

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant did not file any proof that APSRTC recovered Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty for non-plying of the buses and that she had sustained loss of Rs. 10,000/-, however awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards damages as there was no proof that the articles were re-delivered  to the complainant.    It directed the opposite party to  pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that she booked the machinery parts worth Rs. 12,500/- for transportation from  Vijayawada to Khammam and entrusted it to the respondent on 19.5.2004  after collecting freight charges.    It ought to have granted the said amount besides the loss sustained by her  and the penalty imposed by APSRTC  together with compensation and costs. 

7)                During the course of arguments the appellant filed a petition to receive  the following documents  by way of additional documents and they are marked as Exs. A1 to A6.   Ex. A1 is  bill dt. 19.5.2004 issued by Shree Sreepathi  Steel Synidcate, Vijayawada  in favour of  Sri Srisaila Mallikarjuna  Travels, Khammam for Rs. 12,665/- towards purchase of aluminium sheets, beadings etc.   Ex. A2  calculation sheet Dt. 10.6.2006  issued by APSRTC towards payment of operational charges to the hire vehicle bearing No. 4500.    Ex. A3  is  proforma for submission of claim by the owner of bus bearing No.  AP24 4546 submitted  by  the complainant for  the  period  from  16.5.2004 to

31.5.2004.  Ex. A4  is  proforma for submission of claim by the owner of bus bearing No.  AP24 U 4949 submitted by the complainant for the period from  16.5.2004 to 31.5.2004.  Ex. A5  is  proforma for submission of claim by the owner of bus bearing No.  AP24 U 4995 submitted by  S. Srinivasulu for the period from  16.5.2004 to 31.5.2004.  A6   is proforma for submission of claim by the owner of bus bearing No.  AP24 U 4464  submitted by  S. Srinivasulu for the period from  16.5.2004 to 31.5.2004. 

8)                Though the complainant filed  consignment note  No. 2924 Dt. 19.5.2004 issued by respondent, notice issued by the complainant to respondent  Dt. 6.6.2004 and  Professional Courier receipt Dt.  6.5.2004  and a notice   Dt. 3.6.2004 issued by  APSRTC to one S. Srinivasulu  before the Dist. Forum they were not marked.   Now they are assigned numbers as Exs. A7 to A10 respectively for easy reference. 

9)                It is an undisputed fact that  the complainant had purchased body building material for buses worth Rs. 12,665/-   from Shree Sreepathi Steel Syndicate, Vijayawada  on 19.5.2004  evidenced under  Ex. A1.  The complainant alleges that the said material was not delivered.  The respondents deny  and asserts that it had delivered.  It contends that  since the complainant did not inform  about  the non-delivery nor issued  any notice within a reasonable time, it is unable to produce receipt.   It would not keep the receipts etc. after one year.    This contention has no legs to stand.   The complainant in fact  has issued a notice in writing  under Ex. A8  on 6.6.2004,  delivered it,  through Professional Courier  evidenced under  receipt Ex. A9.   The complainant could not have created such a receipt  from Professional Couriers.   The signature also finds place on the receipt.    Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the respondent did not deliver the articles entrusted to it worth Rs. 12,665/- which the complainant was entitled. 

10)                The complainant alleges that   she was running five buses  on hire with APSRTC,  and for plying every year,  she had to get them repaired  for which she would be given time for four days.    In case of delay  they  collect penalty of Rs. 500/- per day per bus.   As the respondent did not deliver material  she had sustained a loss of Rs. 200/- per day per bus,  due to non-delivery of buses to APSRTC.     She had paid penalty of Rs. 25,000/- due to non-servicing of buses.    In order to prove the said fact, she filed the notice issued by APSRTC to one  S. Srinivasulu.   The notice reads that he was the owner of bus No. AP 24 U 4995.  The  name of the complainant was not mentioned.    What all it was stated was that  “an agreement was entered into for an initial period of three years  i.e., from 26.5.2001  to 25.5.2004 for the bus bearing registration No. AP 24 U 4995.  By now more than  20 days time  is over after expiry of initial period of three years.  But so far you have not  produced the bus for inspection to verify its  fitness and to take further necessary action.  Hence, you are advised to produce the vehicle in fit condition within one week  from the date of  receipt of this notice, failing which action will be taken to terminate the allotment.”

11)              The complainant did not mention as to the relationship between her  and  S. Srinivasulu.  She  alleges  in the complaint  that she was the proprietor of  Srisaila Mallikharjuna  Travels.    Ex. A10 letter was addressed by APSRTC  to the  Srinivasulu  address, therefore it cannot be said that she was the owner of bus bearing No. AP 24 U 4995.   Though she alleged that  she was plying five buses  for APSRTC  she  did not  mention the  registration numbers of the buses  nor any documents to show  that she owns five buses which she has hired  to APSRTC.    She filed Ex. A2 proceedings to show that APSRTC had deducted the amount towards fine pertaining to the bus.  However, it relates to the buses  belonging to S. Srinivasulu.    So also  Ex. A3  & A4. They  pertain  to bus Nos. AP 24 U 4546 and  AP 24 U 4949 of  S. Srinivasulu.

 12)              She  filed Exs. A45 & A6.  They pertain  to bus Nos. AP 24U 4995 and AP 24 U 4464.  It shows that they belong to  complainant.    Ex. A5 & A6 show that she had hired the buses bearing Nos. AP 24 U 4995  and  AP 24 U 4464  to APSRTC and an amount of Rs. 4,019/- and Rs. 6,847/- respectively was collected towards penalty since the buses could not ply from 16.5.2004 to 31.5.2004.  It would come to Rs. 10,866/-.    The fact that she had sustained loss of  an amount of Rs. 200/- per day per bus was not established  by any document.    The  proceedings  issued to  Srinivasulu  cannot be tagged on to the complainant.  She could not prove that she along with S. Srinivasulu  were hiring the buses  and have sustained loss.    Unless she proves that  fact  it cannot be  said  that she had sustained loss of Rs. 35,000/-.  At any rate for four days even according to her  she cannot ply the buses in a year.    Therefore she  could not have earned any income from out of those days.    Considering the evidence placed on record, we are of the opinion that  the complainant was undoubtedly entitled to Rs. 12,665/-  the value of the material entrusted to the respondent carrier  plus an amount of Rs. 10,866/- paid by her to APSRTC by way of penalty  for not entrusting the buses in time.    The Dist. Forum had already awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- which we feel reasonable and adequate.    The complainant is undoubtedly entitled to  simple interest @ 6% p.a.,  on the value of the material entrusted to the respondent from 19.5.2004 till the date of realization.    She is also entitled to costs of Rs. 1,000/- in the appeal. 

13)               In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the Dist. Forum.  The respondents are directed to  pay Rs. 12,665/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from  19.5.2004 till the date of realization  and pay Rs. 10,866/- paid by her to APSRTC towards penalty together with costs of Rs. 1,000/- in the appeal.  Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

                                                                               Dt.  22. 03.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”