Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/41

General Manager, Kerala Road ways - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jithesh.P.V - Opp.Party(s)

K.G.Mohandas Pai

16 May 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/41

General Manager, Kerala Road ways
Area Manager
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jithesh.P.V
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. General Manager, Kerala Road ways 2. Area Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Jithesh.P.V

For the Appellant :
1. K.G.Mohandas Pai 2.

For the Respondent :
1.



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM
FA.41/2008
Judgment dated 16.5.08
Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF,Wayanad in CC.23/05
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER
1. General Manger,
    Kerala Roadways Pvt.Ltd.,(KRS)
    Corporate Office,
     A.G Road, Kozhikode                                : APPELLANTS
2. Area Manager,
    KRS, Veliyambam.P.O.,
    Pulpally,
    Wayanad District.
 
(By Adv.K.G.Mohandas Pai)
 
             Vs.
Jitesh.P.V.,                                                 : RESPONDENT
S/o Vijayan,
Padinjare Kalathil Veedu,
Velliyambalam.P.O,
Pulpally, Wayanad District.
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT
 
          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.23/05 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are Carriers who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation and 2000/- as costs.
          2. It is the case of the complainant that the consignment addressed to the complainant consisting 19 Kgs of sarees, sweets pants etc  was not delivered and when it was enquired into the complainant was intimated that the parcel has been lost and that the loss would be compensated, but the same was not done.   The complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs.41000/- with interest + 10000/- as compensation for mental pain.
          3. The opposite parties contested the matter alleging that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.
          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 Exts. A1 to A3.
          It is the contention of the counsel for appellants that the consigner has not been examined; and instead of the consignor it is the mother of the consignor who was examined. It is also pointed out that the consignee is not examined and is also not made a party.   It is also pointed out that the value of the  items    and respective weights assigned do not tally. Four shirts are mentioned as having the weight of 2 Kg and the value of the shirts is mentioned as Rs.6000/-. We find that the above alleged discrepancies and non examination of the consigner are not material in the circumstances. The loss of the consignment is admitted. Weight of the commodities ie;19Kg is not disputed. The Forum has awarded only 10000/- as compensation. We find there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum and hence there is no scope for interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.
 
 
          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
 
          SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
 
          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR