BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Lady Member
Friday the 27th day of October, 2006
C.C.No.59/2006
1. Yugandhar Reddy,
Managing Partner,
M/s. Laxmi Road Lines,
S/o. J. Gopal Reddy,
Aged about 30 years,
Plot No.11-48, Kurnool. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Maddaiah, Lorry Owner,
aged about 45 years, Hindu,
Gosanipalli Village, Dhone Taluk,
Kurnool District.
2. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance,
Division of Indusind Bank Ltd.,
Commercial Vehicles Division, 3rd floor,
Minerva House, 94, S.D. Road,
Secunderabad. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant, Sri Y. Srinivasulu Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No.2 and opposite party No.1 called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt. C. Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12, of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction of opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.15,500/- towards cost of the consignment, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony Rs.2,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the Managing Partner of M/s. Laxmi Road Lines and commission agent, and entered into a contract with M/s. Uttar Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., for supply of poultry feed as such on 10.10.05 agreed for supply of 213 bags of Poultry Feed from the factory to M/s. Venkateswara Hatch Pvt. Ltd., Sri Satya Sai Chemicals and Feeds, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The complainant engaged opposite party No.1 for supply of said poultry feed for Rs.5,500/- as freight charges and paid Rs.5,000/- to opposite party No.1 and loaded the Truck bearing No:AP21V 7826 on same day and left to Medchal, On 11.11.05 the complainant received information from the driver of the Truck that the said Truck was taken into custody by opposite party No.2 (M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance) and was kept in M/s. Sahagal Ware Housing Company, Akbar Road, Secunderabad. After receiving information the complainant enquired about the Truck from opposite party No.2 and it was revealed that opposite party No.1 purchased the said Truck bearing No.AP21 V 7826 from opposite party No.2 on installment basis and opposite party No.1 was not paying installments regularly, so they have taken into custody the said Truck. After hearing the same from opposite party No.2 the complainant requested to permit him to take the feed but opposite party No.2 has not permitted, after several requests the complainant was permitted to take the feed from the Truck on 19.10.05 and same was loaded into another Truck bearing No.AP16 X 4458 by paying Rs.2,500/- towards freight charges. After taking the feed to the destination the supervisor of the receiving company refused to receive 11 bags of feed as those bags had chumps and bad smell because of wet due to heavy rains which resulted in heavy loss to the complainant, the refusal of 11 bags of feed, was due to seizure of Truck by opposite party No.2 and retaining the said load in their Ware House for a period of one week. Hence, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.890/- per each bag due to the negligent act of opposite parties and Rs.2,500/- as hire charges in engaging another Truck at Secunderabad and Rs.1,000/- towards labour charges. As the complainant could not supply the feed bags within time due to negligence and irresponsible act of opposite parties the complainant suffered huge loss of Rs.17,900/-. Hence, there is deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz.(1)Delivery Challan-cum Invocie dated:10.10.05 issued by Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd.(2)Attested Xerox copy of R.C. of K. Maddaiah for Lorry bearing No.AP21 V 7826,(3)Letter dated 19.10.05 issued by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., to Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., (4)Two photographs along with their corresponding negatives and (5)Receipt dated:25.10.05 issued by photographer to the complainant for Rs.120/- besides, of the Sworn Affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.5 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the third party affidavit of V. Hariharanarayana (Photographer).
4. In Pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte. The opposite party No.2 appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the complaint of the complainant is unjust is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denies all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint averments and submits that the opposite party No.2 officials permitted the complainant to take away his goods on the very day when the complainant approached them as they have no right over the goods and precisely for this reason it has co-operated with the complainant in giving permission to move the goods forth with. The further allegations of the complainant that the bags got damaged at the time of seizure is not with in the knowledge of this opposite party No.2 and denies the value of each bags and the number of bags damaged and other expenditure incurred by the complainant . Lastly alleges that the complainant added opposite party No.2 only as formal party hence the forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party No.2 with costs.
6. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
7. It is case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement with M/s. Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., for supply of poultry feed bags. On 10.10.05 the complainant agreed for supply of 213 bags of poultry feed from M/s. Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt., Ltd., vide Ex.A1, and engaged opposite party No.1’s lorry
for supply of said feed bags. On 11.10.05 when the destination was about 15 k.m.s the opposite party No.2 (Ashok Leyland Finance ) has seized the said lorry as opposite party No.1 failed to pay installments due to them. The opposite party No.2 submits that it has nothing to do with the goods loaded in the said truck and allowed the complainant unloaded the some when he approached them. The complainant alleges that due to said seizure of lorry there was delay of one week in supplying the feed bags to its destiny and due said delay and heavy rains 11 feed bags got damaged, the Ex.A4 Photographs along with corresponding negatives shows that the feed in the bags had lumps and the said bags were rejected by Venkateshwara Hatcheries vide Ex.A3, the Ex.A3 is the letter dated 19.10.05 of Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., addressed to Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt., Ltd. stating that it has received 202 bags of poultry feed and 11 bags are rejected due to over formation of lumps and bad smell because of wet and are return by the same lorry. Therefore it is clearing that 11 bags of feed are damaged and return to the complainant.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether any deficiency of service is on the part of opposite party No.1:? The complainant engaged opposite party No.1’s lorry for said supply by paying Rs.5,500/- as freight charges and it is the out look of opposite party No.1 to see that all installments are paid to his finance company in order to avoid seizure of the vehicle and the complainant is not expected to look into the unwarranted matter. It is further the duty of opposite party No.1 to said the lorry which had no pending lien or hypothecation to the complainant for which the complainant had paid charges. The opposite party No.2 cannot be founded fault with as it is part of its duty when installments are not paid he has to seize the vehicle when they are plying on the road. Hence, no deficiency of service was made out against opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 not only defaulted in payment of installments to opposite party No.2 but also caused inconvenience to the complainant when the said lorry was seized by opposite party No.2 for not paying installments due to them by opposite party No.1. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 for sending the said lorry to the complainant without paying installments due to the finance company and the said vehicle was seized by opposite party No.2. Hence, opposite party No.1 is liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant due to the said seizure.
9. To sum up, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 for engaging the lorry to the complainant, which he knows pretty well that installments are not paid to the finance company and at any moment the vehicle can be seized by the finance company. For no fault of complainant he has to incur heavy expenditure due to said seizure for which the opposite party No.1 has to make good the loss suffered by the complainant and the complainant is perfectly entitled for the reliefs sought.
10. To what quantum of reliefs the complainant is entitled to the complainant is entitled to Rs.890/- cost of each bag for 11 bags (Rs.890/-x11), as there was delay of one week in supply of feed bags to its destination due to seizure which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense mental agony and hence he is entitled to compensation also. As regarding to the other reliefs except taking a plea in the complaint averments the complainant has not let in any evidence in this aspect, hence the said reliefs are rejected. As the complainant has to resort to the forum for redressal he is entitled to costs also.
11. As no cause of action was made out against opposite party No.2 case costs to opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.890/- per bag for 11 bags (Rs.890/-x11), Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs, within a month of receipt of this order. In default opposite party No.1 shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 27th day of October, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Party : Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Delivery Challan-cum-Invoice, dated:10.10.2005.
Ex.A2 Attested copy of R.C. of Ap21 V 7826 (form 24).
Ex.A3 Letter dated:19.10.2005 of Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt, Ltd.,
addressed to Uttara Foods & Feed Pvt., Ltd., (As to rejection of 11
bags & acceptance of 202 bags.).
Ex.A4 Two photos with negatives.
Ex.A5 Receipt dated:25.10.2005 issued by Devi photographer for Rs.120/-.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. Y. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Maddaiah, Lorry Owner, aged about 45 years, Hindu,
Gosanipalli Village, Dhone Taluk,Kurnool District.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Lady Member
Friday the 27th day of October, 2006
C.C.No.59/2006
1. Yugandhar Reddy,
Managing Partner,
M/s. Laxmi Road Lines,
S/o. J. Gopal Reddy,
Aged about 30 years,
Plot No.11-48, Kurnool. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Maddaiah, Lorry Owner,
aged about 45 years, Hindu,
Gosanipalli Village, Dhone Taluk,
Kurnool District.
2. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance,
Division of Indusind Bank Ltd.,
Commercial Vehicles Division, 3rd floor,
Minerva House, 94, S.D. Road,
Secunderabad. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant, Sri Y. Srinivasulu Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No.2 and opposite party No.1 called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt. C. Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12, of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction of opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.15,500/- towards cost of the consignment, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony Rs.2,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the Managing Partner of M/s. Laxmi Road Lines and commission agent, and entered into a contract with M/s. Uttar Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., for supply of poultry feed as such on 10.10.05 agreed for supply of 213 bags of Poultry Feed from the factory to M/s. Venkateswara Hatch Pvt. Ltd., Sri Satya Sai Chemicals and Feeds, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The complainant engaged opposite party No.1 for supply of said poultry feed for Rs.5,500/- as freight charges and paid Rs.5,000/- to opposite party No.1 and loaded the Truck bearing No:AP21V 7826 on same day and left to Medchal, On 11.11.05 the complainant received information from the driver of the Truck that the said Truck was taken into custody by opposite party No.2 (M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance) and was kept in M/s. Sahagal Ware Housing Company, Akbar Road, Secunderabad. After receiving information the complainant enquired about the Truck from opposite party No.2 and it was revealed that opposite party No.1 purchased the said Truck bearing No.AP21 V 7826 from opposite party No.2 on installment basis and opposite party No.1 was not paying installments regularly, so they have taken into custody the said Truck. After hearing the same from opposite party No.2 the complainant requested to permit him to take the feed but opposite party No.2 has not permitted, after several requests the complainant was permitted to take the feed from the Truck on 19.10.05 and same was loaded into another Truck bearing No.AP16 X 4458 by paying Rs.2,500/- towards freight charges. After taking the feed to the destination the supervisor of the receiving company refused to receive 11 bags of feed as those bags had chumps and bad smell because of wet due to heavy rains which resulted in heavy loss to the complainant, the refusal of 11 bags of feed, was due to seizure of Truck by opposite party No.2 and retaining the said load in their Ware House for a period of one week. Hence, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.890/- per each bag due to the negligent act of opposite parties and Rs.2,500/- as hire charges in engaging another Truck at Secunderabad and Rs.1,000/- towards labour charges. As the complainant could not supply the feed bags within time due to negligence and irresponsible act of opposite parties the complainant suffered huge loss of Rs.17,900/-. Hence, there is deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz.(1)Delivery Challan-cum Invocie dated:10.10.05 issued by Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd.(2)Attested Xerox copy of R.C. of K. Maddaiah for Lorry bearing No.AP21 V 7826,(3)Letter dated 19.10.05 issued by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., to Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., (4)Two photographs along with their corresponding negatives and (5)Receipt dated:25.10.05 issued by photographer to the complainant for Rs.120/- besides, of the Sworn Affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.5 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the third party affidavit of V. Hariharanarayana (Photographer).
4. In Pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte. The opposite party No.2 appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the complaint of the complainant is unjust is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denies all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint averments and submits that the opposite party No.2 officials permitted the complainant to take away his goods on the very day when the complainant approached them as they have no right over the goods and precisely for this reason it has co-operated with the complainant in giving permission to move the goods forth with. The further allegations of the complainant that the bags got damaged at the time of seizure is not with in the knowledge of this opposite party No.2 and denies the value of each bags and the number of bags damaged and other expenditure incurred by the complainant . Lastly alleges that the complainant added opposite party No.2 only as formal party hence the forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party No.2 with costs.
6. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
7. It is case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement with M/s. Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., for supply of poultry feed bags. On 10.10.05 the complainant agreed for supply of 213 bags of poultry feed from M/s. Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt., Ltd., vide Ex.A1, and engaged opposite party No.1’s lorry
for supply of said feed bags. On 11.10.05 when the destination was about 15 k.m.s the opposite party No.2 (Ashok Leyland Finance ) has seized the said lorry as opposite party No.1 failed to pay installments due to them. The opposite party No.2 submits that it has nothing to do with the goods loaded in the said truck and allowed the complainant unloaded the some when he approached them. The complainant alleges that due to said seizure of lorry there was delay of one week in supplying the feed bags to its destiny and due said delay and heavy rains 11 feed bags got damaged, the Ex.A4 Photographs along with corresponding negatives shows that the feed in the bags had lumps and the said bags were rejected by Venkateshwara Hatcheries vide Ex.A3, the Ex.A3 is the letter dated 19.10.05 of Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., addressed to Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt., Ltd. stating that it has received 202 bags of poultry feed and 11 bags are rejected due to over formation of lumps and bad smell because of wet and are return by the same lorry. Therefore it is clearing that 11 bags of feed are damaged and return to the complainant.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether any deficiency of service is on the part of opposite party No.1:? The complainant engaged opposite party No.1’s lorry for said supply by paying Rs.5,500/- as freight charges and it is the out look of opposite party No.1 to see that all installments are paid to his finance company in order to avoid seizure of the vehicle and the complainant is not expected to look into the unwarranted matter. It is further the duty of opposite party No.1 to said the lorry which had no pending lien or hypothecation to the complainant for which the complainant had paid charges. The opposite party No.2 cannot be founded fault with as it is part of its duty when installments are not paid he has to seize the vehicle when they are plying on the road. Hence, no deficiency of service was made out against opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 not only defaulted in payment of installments to opposite party No.2 but also caused inconvenience to the complainant when the said lorry was seized by opposite party No.2 for not paying installments due to them by opposite party No.1. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 for sending the said lorry to the complainant without paying installments due to the finance company and the said vehicle was seized by opposite party No.2. Hence, opposite party No.1 is liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant due to the said seizure.
9. To sum up, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 for engaging the lorry to the complainant, which he knows pretty well that installments are not paid to the finance company and at any moment the vehicle can be seized by the finance company. For no fault of complainant he has to incur heavy expenditure due to said seizure for which the opposite party No.1 has to make good the loss suffered by the complainant and the complainant is perfectly entitled for the reliefs sought.
10. To what quantum of reliefs the complainant is entitled to the complainant is entitled to Rs.890/- cost of each bag for 11 bags (Rs.890/-x11), as there was delay of one week in supply of feed bags to its destination due to seizure which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense mental agony and hence he is entitled to compensation also. As regarding to the other reliefs except taking a plea in the complaint averments the complainant has not let in any evidence in this aspect, hence the said reliefs are rejected. As the complainant has to resort to the forum for redressal he is entitled to costs also.
11. As no cause of action was made out against opposite party No.2 case costs to opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.890/- per bag for 11 bags (Rs.890/-x11), Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs, within a month of receipt of this order. In default opposite party No.1 shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 27th day of October, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Party : Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Delivery Challan-cum-Invoice, dated:10.10.2005.
Ex.A2 Attested copy of R.C. of Ap21 V 7826 (form 24).
Ex.A3 Letter dated:19.10.2005 of Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt, Ltd.,
addressed to Uttara Foods & Feed Pvt., Ltd., (As to rejection of 11
bags & acceptance of 202 bags.).
Ex.A4 Two photos with negatives.
Ex.A5 Receipt dated:25.10.2005 issued by Devi photographer for Rs.120/-.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. Y. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Maddaiah, Lorry Owner, aged about 45 years, Hindu,
Gosanipalli Village, Dhone Taluk,Kurnool District.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
