This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for complainant; Sri.B.H.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri VIJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the agent of opposite party No.2 at Khammam. The complainant booked one parcel on 22-4-2010 in favour of Ramson Logistics, New Delhi worth of Rs.98,777/- through opposite party No.1 at Khammam, as the parcel was not received by the consignee at Delhi, the complainant reported the same to the opposite party No.1 on 10-5-2010 and opposite party No.1 promised to solve the problem within 10 days. After many requests and several approaches of complainant, the opposite party No.2 informed through the opposite party No.1 that the parcel was missed while transshipping from Hyderabad to New Delhi and the same was lost beyond recovery and it was informed to the complainant on 10-7-2010 there is gross negligence on the parties in delivering the goods to the consignee and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As per the contract between the complainant and the opposite parties, the opposite parties shall deliver to the consignee in safe and secured manner, failing of this aspect amounts to deficiency in service. Due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and also suffered pain and suffering and also lost reputation by the consignee. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the complaint got issued a legal notice on 16-7-2010 calling them to pay Rs.98,777/- towards value of the goods and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. The opposite parties failed to trace out the goods. Hence, this complaint.
Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint. On presenting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Inspite of service of notices, the opposite parties did not care to attend the Forum and put forth their claim. The case underwent a number of adjournments, even then there was no representation from opposite party side. Sometimes the case adjourned on payment of costs, neither the cost is paid nor the counter is filed, at last on 29-3-2011 there was no representation from opposite party side. Hence it was deemed that opposite party has no counter to offer, filing of counter by opposite parties is forfeited, later the complainant filed written arguments and also submitted oral arguments. As seen from the court docket, the matter pertaining to 2010, the case underwent a number of adjournments enabling the opposite parties to file the counter and contest the matter and put forth their claim even then they did not bother to put forth their contention before the forum.
Heard the counsel for complainant and also perused the contents of written arguments.
On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed.
i) Original Courier receipt, dt.22-4-2010 issued by Speed and Safe
courier service, Khammam
ii) Photocopy of courier receipt, dt.23-4-2010
iii) Photocopy of letter addressed to Speed and safe courier Pvt.
Ltd., dt.10-5-2010
iv) Letter addressed to complainant by Speed and Safe courier
service, Khammam
v) Photocopy of letter addressed to Veerabhadram, by Regional
Manager, Speed and Safe courier service Pvt. Ltd.
vi) Photocopy of letter addressed to M/s Internet Logistics,
Hyderabad, dt.3-7-2010.
vii) Office copy of legal notice, dt.16-7-2010.
viii) Acknowledgments (2Nos.)
After hearing the arguments from the complainant side and perusing the documentary evidence, now the points that arose for consideration are,
1) Whether non-delivery of consignment to the consignee by the
opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service?
2) To what relief?
Point No.1:
The learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued and submitted that the opposite party No.1 is the agent of opposite party No.2 at Khammam. The complainant most particularly refers to certain documents, which were issued by opposite party No.1 in the name of opposite party No.2. More particularly a letter, which was addressed by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant dt.10-05-2010, wherein the opposite party No.1 has promised to solve the problem within a period of 10 days. This apart, the counsel refers to another letter, dt.10-5-2010 addressed by complainant to Managing Director of Kerala Branch and also another letter, dt.3-7-2010 addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 regarding non reaching of consignment. The cumulative effect of all these documents clinchingly go to establish that the complainant booked consignment through courier service of opposite party No.1 and the said courier worth of Rs.98,777/- did not reach the consignee. On the basis of all these letters, it can be safely believed that it is the opposite parties who failed to discharge their bounden duty in carrying the consignment to the consignee as prayed by the complainant.
Regarding worth of consignment is concerned, the complainant pleads that the consignment is worth of Rs.98,777/-. This figure was mentioned in the complaint itself, even at the time of filing of complaint. The complainant was not aware that the opposite parties may not contest the matter and the claim is incorrect. Had there been any contest from opposite parties, then the burden lies upon the complainant to establish that the consignment is worth of Rs.98,777/-. When absolutely there is no contest from opposite parties, we cannot presume that the consignment is not worth of Rs.98,777/-. On the basis of these corresponding letters as discussed above, it is not in dispute that the complainant has not booked the consignment and the same was not reached to the consignee and it was misplaced, lost beyond recovery. Therefore, it is for the opposite parties to compensate the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for complainant rightly argued that on account of non-reaching the consignment to the consignee, its reputation in the eyes of consignee is damaged. Therefore, he is entitled to the damages Rs.10,000/-. As per the contract between the complainant and opposite parties, it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to deliver the goods to the consignee in a safe and secured manner. But there is gross negligence on the part of opposite parties in delivering the goods to the consignee. This act on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is fit to be allowed.
Point No.2:
In the result, The complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.98,777/- towards value of the goods of the consignment, Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are directing to deposit the above said amount within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. thereafter, till the date of deposit.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 2nd day of April, 2012.
President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
