BEFORETHE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2010. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.33/2009 Between: Adurugundla Kesavulu, S/o Gopi, Age: 26 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.8-4-112, Mominan Bazar, Khammam Town. . Complainant. And 1. DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Beside Bajaj Showroom, Z.P. Center, Khammam. 2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Beside Rekha Garments, Opp. Srinivasa Text Tiles, Jowliveedhi, Near Indian Bank, Palamaneru of Chittor District. 3. DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Regd. Office, DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore. Opposite parties. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Naveen Chaitanya, Advocate for the complainant, Sri V. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is residing at Khammam Town and he is originally native of Palamakulapalli viallage, Bangarupalyem Mandal, Chittoor District. The opposite party No.3 is a limited company having its registered office at Bangalore, having its branches all over India including Khammam and Palamaneru Town. On 30-01-2009, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and asked to make the cargo of LG colour TV of 29 inches, vide model No.29FD7RG-TR, worth of Rs.19,990/- to Palamakulapalli village of Chittoor district, but as there is no cargo service to the said village, the opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to make the cargo to their one of the branch offices, located in Palamaneru town of Chittoor district, which is nearer to native village of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that they will serve the said T.V. with good and safe condition to the destination with in two days. On that the complainant make the cargo of said T.V. in good working condition addressed to A. Kesavulu, C/o The Manager, DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Beside Rekha Garments, Opp. Srinivasa Textiles, Jowliveedi, near Indian Bank, Palamaner town, Chittoor District and for which the opposite party No.1 collected a sum of Rs.800/-, towards charges and issued a receipt bearing No.H57773140*, dated 30-01-2009 and the value of the said colour T.V. was mentioned as Rs.19,990/- in the value column. On 03-02-2009, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 at Palamaneru branch office and asked to deliver the T.V., but the T.V. is not in working condition, the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the T.V. or get it repaired the same. For that the opposite party No.2 gave a letter stating that he received the said T.V. from opposite party No.1 in damage condition, as such he deliver the said T.V. in the same condition only. Further the opposite party No.2 stated that his company i.e. DTDC will bear the repair charges, on that the complainant along with opposite party No.2 visited Sri Systems LG Authorised service center at Tirupati on 03-02-2009 for attending repairs of said T.V. The LG service center, Tirupati gave a quotation by mentioning an amount of Rs.13,707/- for attending repairs of the said T.V., but the opposite party No.2 refused to bear the quotation amount. On that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 at Khammam and requested to replace or get repaired the said T.V., but the opposite party No.1 instead of replacing the same threatened the complainant. Having no other go approached the Forum for justice. 2. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A5. Ex.A1:- Courier receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant dated 30-01-2009. Ex.A2:- Letter addressed to complainant by the opposite party No.2, dated 03/02/2009. Ex.A3:- Quotation of Sri Systems LG Authorized service center, Tirupati, dated 03-02-2009. Ex.A4:- Estimation charges invoice bill issued by Sri Sytems Tirupati, dated 19-02-2009. Ex.A5:- Photo copy of Delivery Run Sheet of opposite party No.2, dated 03/02/2009. 3. On receipt of the notices, the opposite party No.1 to 3, appeared through their counsel and filed counter. As per the counter of opposite parties, the T.V. was not damaged in their custody, the allegations made in the complaint are invented only for the purpose of filing of the complaint and the opposite parties delivered the consignment in same condition in which the complainant booked, the condition of the T.V. was not informed at the time of booking, as such the opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages. The opposite parties also submitted that they do not know the condition of the T.V., they are not responsible for alleged loss sustained by the complainant. The incurred damage of Rs.1,00,000/- is imaginary, without any proof the complainant cannot claim any damages and the complainant does not approach the Forum with clean hands, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the consignment note/receipt issued by them, in case of loss or damage to the shipment/articles, is only Rs.100/- as per clause (5) of the receipt and nobody can not claim damages, there is no deficiency of service on their part, the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint against them. As such prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 4. On behalf of the opposite parties no documents has been filed. 5. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments now the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? 2. For what relief? POINT1:- In this case on 30-01-2009, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 at Khammam, to make cargo of LG colour T.V. of 29 inches, vide model No.29FD7RG-TR worth Rs.19,990/- to Palamaneru town, Chittoor District. On 03-02-2009, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and asked for delivery, but he observed that the T.V. was in broken condition. On that the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the T.V. or got it repaired. For that the opposite party No.2 gave a letter Ex.A2, stating that he received the said T.V. in damage condition from opposite party No.1. On the advise of the opposite party No.2, the complainant approached Sri Sytems LG Service Centre at Tirupati, for attending repairs, the above service center gave a quotation for Rs.13,707/-. But the opposite party No.2 refused to pay the quotation amount. Latter complainant approached the opposite party No.1 at Khammam and requested to replace the said T.V., the opposite party No.1 also refused to pay the same. On that the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. We observed from the record that in Ex.A1, receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 there are certain columns, in declaration column, Declaration of DOX/N.DOX Items it was mentioned that LG Colour T.V. and also in value column it was Rs.19,990/- and the same was filled by opposite party No.1. As per Ex.A2, the opposite party No.2, admitted in his letter dated 03-02-2009, T.V. model No. 29FD7RGE-TR was totally damaged in our courier service. It was in a scrap condition as such I here with handovering the T.V. in damaged condition only. As per Ex.A3, Sri Systems LG Service Center, Tirupati, gave quotation for Rs.13,707/- for attending repairs and also they issued invoice No.3130, dated 19-02-2009, for Rs.394/- for estimation charges which is Ex.A4. It is an undisputed fact that the T.V. was booked and undertaken by opposite party No.1 to deliver it at Palamaneru town, Chittoor District. The opposite party No.1 is a duty bound in transporting the goods through courier and cargo service in good condition. It is the bounden duty to take all care and precautions for safe delivery of the goods. As per Ex.A1, terms and conditions that in case of loss or damage of the goods, the liability is only to pay Rs.100/- and the opposite parties wanted to make payment of Rs.100/-. The opposite parties cannot take this rule and offer to pay only Rs.100/- for the damage of the T.V. It is proved on record from Ex.A1 and A3, the cost of the T.V. was 19,990/-, which is unchallenged by opposite parties. From the above there is negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties, when they failed to deliver the T.V. in good condition to the complainant. As such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. POINT No.2:- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the value of the LG T.V. which is Rs.19,990/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26-03-2009 and also granted Rs.1000/- towards costs of the litigation. Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 27th day of July, 2010 PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite party: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Courier receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant dated 30-01-2009. Ex.A2:- Letter addressed to complainant by the opposite party No.2, dated 03/02/2009. Ex.A3:- Quotation of Sri Systems LG Authorized service center, Tirupati, dated 03-02-2009. Ex.A4:- Estimation charges invoice bill issued by Sri Sytems Tirupati, dated 19-02-2009. Ex.A5:- Photo copy of Delivery Run Sheet of opposite party No.2, dated 03/02/2009. Exhibits marked for opposite party: Nil PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
