O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming Rs.10, 000/- towards value of the stock short delivered and Rs.25, 000/- as special damages besides costs.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:
The complainant on 23-04-10 booked goods weighing 22 kgs., worth of Rs.14, 139/- to the 1st opposite party to be delivered to its sub-ordinate at Pathankota, Punjab state. The consignee did not receive the entire stock and found articles worth of Rs.10, 000/- missing. Some photo albums and cards of third parties belonging to Ongole of Prakasam district were bundled. The said consignment was tampered either at Bapatla or enroute to Vijayawada. The complainant on 05-05-10 received a letter from the consignee containing the list of articles received together with photographs. Inspite of repeated demands there was no proper response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are postponing the payment on one ground or other. Short delivery of articles by the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service. The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- as special damages.
3. The 1st opposite party remained exparte.
4. The contention of the 2nd opposite party in brief is thus:
The complainant on 23-04-10 had consigned one parcel weighing 22 kgs with the 1st opposite party for delivery at Pathankota. The complainant neither declared the value of goods in consignment note nor its contents. The said consignment was not booked in open condition. The complainant did not insure the consignment. The 2nd opposite party immediately forwarded the consignment of the complainant along with other consignments to Hyderabad for onward delivery to New Delhi. The 2nd opposite party sent consignments (parcels) numbering 210 meant for New Delhi and beyond in the parcel van of train No.2723 (A.P. Express). On 26-04-10 it was found that the seals and locks put on the luggage van of train No.2723 (A.P. Express) were found broken and parcels in 204 bundles weighing about 2787 kgs were received instead of 210 numbers of parcels weighing about 3100 kgs. Six bundles were found missing. Most of the other parcels including the consignment of the complainant were damaged. The 2nd opposite party lodged a report with the I.G. of Police, South Central Railway, Secunderabad to take necessary action and the same is pending. The 2nd opposite party never acknowledged its liability to pay Rs.10, 000/-. The 2nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service. The consignment was not tampered either at Bapatla or enroute to Vijayawada. Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint is all false and are invented to suit its claim. The complaint therefore be dismissed.
5. Exs.A-1 to A-11 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 and B-2 on behalf of opposite party were marked.
6. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?
7. POINT No.1:- The complainant on 23-04-10 booking a consignment weighing 22 kgs with the opposite parties for delivery at Pathankota is not in dispute Ex.A-1 (= A-8). The opposite parties collected Rs.1760/- towards freight charges from the complainant as seen from Ex.A-1 (=A8). The complainant did not mention value of the consignment or its contents as rightly contended by the opposite parties. To prove the value of the consignment the complainant filed Ex.A-3 (=A-10 and A-11). In Ex.A-3 the value of articles covered in it was mentioned as Rs.4, 827/- and Rs.10, 056/-. The complainant did not describe the goods and its value though there was a column in Ex.A-9. The opposite parties ought to have ascertained the value of the goods and its contents before booking the parcel. It is not open to the opposite party to contend at a later stage that the complainant has not mentioned either the value or the nature of goods.
8. The opposite parties in their version at para 4 contended as detailed infra:
“The 2nd opposite party submits that on 26-04-10, when the train No.2723 A.P. Express had reached New Delhi Railway Station, it was found that the seals and locks put on the luggage van were found broken and 204 nos. of bundles weighing about 2787 kgs were received instead of 210 nos. of bundles weighing about 3100 kgs and about 6 nos. of bundles were found to be missing and most of the other parcels including the consignment of the complainant were damaged”.
9. The above averments revealed that the consignee did not receive the articles as it stood at the time of booking. Under those circumstances short delivery of articles to the consignee is proved and it amounted to deficiency of service. We therefore answer this point against the opposite parties.
10. POINT No.2:- In Ex.A-9 it was mentioned that their liability for any loss or damage to the shipment is Rs.100/- only. When the opposite parties are collecting huge amount for transporting goods such liability clause in our considered opinion is unreasonable. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the seals and locks put on the parcel van of AP Express was found broken. The opposite parties filed a copy of report given to the Inspector General of Police, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (Ex.B-1 and B-2). The opposite parties did not inform this Forum whether any case was registered or not on the basis of Ex.B-2. It is beyond the comprehension of the opposite parties regarding the meddling of parcel van of AP Express. Under those circumstances the complainant in our considered opinion is not entitled to any special damages as claimed. Hence we answer this point against the complainant.
11. Ex.A-2 is copy of the letter addressed by the consignee to the complainant on 05-05-10. Exs.A-2 and A-3 revealed that the consignee received sarees worth of Rs.2, 516/- instead of Rs.4, 585/- and suits material instead of Rs.9, 554/-. The complainant has no personal interest in the claim. Under those circumstances, we see no reason to disbelieve the value of the consignment. We therefore opine that the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.9, 429/- being the value of goods short delivered.
12. POINT No.3:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:
1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.9, 429/- (Rupees nine thousand four hundred and twenty nine only) together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till payment.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1, 000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
3. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30th day of August, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
|
A1 |
23-04-10 |
Copy of courier consignment note No.H70542658 |
A2 |
05-05-10 |
Copy of letter given by the consignee complaining of clandestine medaling of stock along with photos. |
A3 |
06-05-10 |
Complaint of missing goods given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party along with enclosures |
A4 |
06-05-10 |
Receipt issued by the Jayalakshmi Photostat of Bapatla for a sum of Rs.200/- issued to complainant |
A5 |
18-06-10 |
Complaint given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party |
A6 |
06-07-10 |
Complaint given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party |
A7 |
12-08-10 |
Complaint given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party along with e-mail receipt |
A8 |
07-09-10 |
Complaint given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party |
A9 |
23-04-10 |
Courier receipt issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant bearing b.No.H70542658 in original |
A10 |
06-04-10 |
Duplicate bill No.083650 issued by the complainant depot for a sum of Rs.10,056/- |
A11 |
06-04-10 |
Duplicate bill No.083651 issued by the complainant depot for a sum of Rs.4,827/- |
For opposite party:
B1 |
18-05-10 |
Copy of complaint lodged to IG of police, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad (originally in Hindi) |
B2 |
18-05-10 |
English translation to the above complaint |
PRESIDENT
