This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 24-10-2007   in the presence of  complainant appeared in person and of Sri. T.Mallikarjuna Gupta, Advocate for  opposite party No-1&2 &3  ;upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

-2-

2.         The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having 5 buses and she gave those buses to the A.P.S.R.T.C., Khammam and Kodada Depot for hire.  Every year those buses have to put in good condition.  For this the A.P.S.R.T.C. will give 4 days time.  In that 4 days if any mechanical problems, Body build problems arise, such problems have to rectify in those days.  After rectifying these problems the A.P.S.R.T.C. will give permission to run these buses.  The complainant had purchased some body build material at Vijayawada and she  booked those  3 materials at opposite party No-2’s office, Vijayawada on 19-5-04 vide LR.No. 2924 and that parcel should be delivered at complainants office situated at DRDA Office, Khammam.  She also pay  an amount of Rs.125/- towards freight charges.

3.     Inspite of  waiting for some days she  could not receive those parts at her office in Khammam.  She enquired at opposite parties office but they did not give proper reply.  For this  attitude  on 6-6-04 she wrote a letter to opposite party No-2 and also enquired through phone but there was no response.

4.         Due to non supply of those materials from opposite parties the A.P.S.R.T.C. imposed penalty of Rs.500/- per bus and also incurred Rs.200/- towards damages per bus.

5.     The complainant purchased another  material and repaired her buses.

6.         Hence this complaint.  The A.P.S.R.T.C. imposed penalty of Rs.500/- per bus.  Penalty of Rs.2,500/- per day for 5 buses that is 10 days she could not ply the buses and Rs.25,000/- penalty  paid to A.P.S.R.T.C.  She also paid an amount of Rs.200/- per day for bus   towards non-service to the A.P.S.R.T.C. for 10 days and that will come to Rs.10,000/-.  She  incurred  total damages of Rs.35,000/- and towards mental agony, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.

-3-

7.         Hence  direct the opposite parties to handover (a) Three parts booked  by her (b) Rs.25,000/- penalty paid by her to the A.P.S.R.T.C. with 24% from 20-5-04 (c) And towards loss of Rs.10,000/- towards non service of buses for 10days with 24% interest from 20-5-04 towards mental agony Rs.20,000/- and costs of litigation i.e., 1,000/-.

8.     The complaint filed her affidavit with the following documents.(i) Original L.R.Receipt issued by opposite party No-1 infavour of complainant dated 19-5-04 and payment of Rs.125/- towards freight charges with duplicate copy.  (ii) Letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No-2 dated 6-6-04 with courier receipt dated 6-6-04(iii) A letter addressed by A.P.S.R.T.C. to (i)S.Srinivasulu Owner of hire bus No.AP 24U 4995, dated 3-6-2004.

9.     Counter filed on behalf of the opposite parties as follows: It may be true that the complainant purchased the body build items and had booked the same to the opposite party No-1 for transport of her 3 items to her office at Khammam on 19-5-04.  But the rest of the allegations such as on 6-6-04 she informed to opposite party No-1through her letter that items  booked by her were not received and she paid penalty of Rs.25,000/- to A.P.S.R.T.C. and  loss of Rs.10,000/- are false  and baseless.

10.      After booking the items by the complainant the opposite parties had delivered the items to the complainant but the complainant with having bad intention to extract money  from the opposite parties withheld the original L.R. and after lapse of more than 2 years the complainant filed this complaint.

11.     It is submitted that on L.R.Receipt of consignment it clearly mentioned that “booked at owners risk” no responsible for breakage and leakage, after 15 days this L.R. not valid.  That since there was delivery of booked items by the opposite parties there is no complaint from the complainant for all these days.  But  the  complainant creating a letter and courier receipt filed this case.

-4-

12.     The complainant did not  filed any  proof of documents that she paid  penalty of Rs.25,000/- to A.P.S.R.T.C. and did not file any documents to show that she had loss of Rs.10,000/-.

13.     Hence it is prayed that Hon’ble Forum  may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

14.     The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits on their behalf.

15.      The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?

16.      It is a fact that the complainant booked 3 items at opposite party No-2’s office on 19-5-04.  To prove her contention she filed the original  L.R. issued by opposite party No-2 on 19-5-04.

17.      For which the contention of opposite parties is that as per para No.4 of their counter the opposite parties have delivered the items to the complainant but the complainant is having bad intention to extract amount withheld LR with her.

18.      It is a fact that they did not file any proof regarding the delivery of those items to the complainant.  The complainant contention is that she is having 5 RTC buses, but  She did not give any registration numbers of those buses or she did not file any certificate of registration of those buses, except saying that she is having 5 buses as per the averments  of the complainant.  So also she did not file any proof regarding the payment of penalty of Rs.25,000/- to  A.P.S.R.T.C so also Rs.10,000/- loss  due to non-plying  of the buses. She averred in her affidavit   that the worth of the goods is Rs.12,500/- but she did not file any purchase bill to show that the value of the goods booked by her Rs.12,500/-.

-5-

19.      Any how we are of opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  If they really delivered the goods they would have take back the original L.R. from the complainant.  Even they did not file any other document to show that they delivered the goods.

20.    As per the facts and circumstances of the case  it is deemed that the opposite party did not deliver the goods to the complainant, but the complainant did not file  any documentary proof to assess the damages.  Hence, we are of the opinion that to award damages of Rs.1000/- would meet the ends of Justice.

21.      Hence we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damages and costs of this litigation within one month from the date of order, otherwise complainant is entitled 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation.  Accordingly this C.D. is allowed.

Dictated  to Stenographer transcribed by her, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 30th    day of October, 2007.

                                                                   President            Member              Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Complainant                                                                                     Opposite parties

Nil                                                                                                        Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Complainant

            Nil                                                                   Opposite parties

                                                                                            Nil                                                                                                                             

                                                        President             Member             Member                                                             District Consumers Forum, Khammam