FA.No.421/2008 against CC.No.644/2007 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between-

1.Mr.Manoj, Branch Manager,

   Southern Movers and Packers,

   182, IInd Floor, Ddutti, Yeshwantpura, Near Kanteerava Studio,

   Bangalore

2.Mr.R.S.Shekhwat,

   Manager, Southern Movers and Packers,

   Shree Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpally,

   Near Priyadarshini Hotel,   Secunderabad.

3.Mr.Tejpal Shekhwat,

   Manager, Arunodaya Niwas,   Room No.3, Ground Floor,  

   Umarkhadi, Mumabai – 8.

…Appellants/Opp.Parties.

And

Nishant Goswami,

A-406, Vashuda Apartment,

Near Swaroopa Hospital,

Suchitra Circle,New Jeedimetla Road,

Hyderabad – 500 055.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel  for the Appellants        - M/s.Gopi Rajesh Associates.

Counsel for the Respondent       - 

QUORUM-THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

------- 

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad, dated 08.01.2008 in CC.No.644/2007. 

2.         The case of the complainant in short is that he had shifted his residence from Bangalore to Hyderabad.  He engaged the services of the appellants for transporting household goods to Hyderabad. On that, they picked up the consignment on 30.04.2007 with a promise that they would deliver it on 01.05.2007.  However, they delivered the consignment on 03.05.2007.  When they  verified  the  goods,  they  found  that  three  of  the  items  worth Rs.28,000/- were missed, and certain goods worth Rs.4,700/- were damaged.                                                      He gave a notice, for which the appellants refuted their liability.  Thereupon, he filed the complaint for recovery of the said amount with interest at 9percent per annum together with costs.

3.         The appellants resisted the complaint.  However, they admitted the delivery of goods at Hyderabad.  In fact the goods were delivered on 03.05.2007 at 9.30 p.m. At the time of taking delivery, the complainant did not allege that T.V. and glass items packed in boxes and three items were missed, besides kitchen grocery were damaged.  A belated complaint was made for which they gave a proper reply.  In fact, the consignment was taken at owners risk.  They did not take any insurance policy for the value of the goods.  Therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation.  The complainant had actually paid Rs.3,600/- as against Rs.6,100/-.  The complainant had failed to pay the remaining transportation charges.  Therefore, he does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’.  The complainant was not entitled to any of the amounts, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed Exs.A.1 to A.8, consignor copy, receipt for payment of amount, etc.  The appellants did not file any document.  After considering the evidence on record, the District Forum opined that some of the articles transported were missed while the other items were found damaged.  Notice was given immediately for which the opposite parties denied by way of a reply.  The District Forum opined that the opposite parties were negligent in transporting the goods of the complainant and accordingly allowed the complaint directing them to pay an amount of Rs.33,000/- with interest at 9percent per annum from 13.05.2007 till the date of payment, besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.  

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the complainant paid only Rs.3,600/- as against Rs.6,100/- towards the transportation charges and therefore he is not a consumer.  At any rate, the goods were consigned at owners risk, and he did not take any insurance policy on the goods.  As such they were not liable to pay any amount.  There was no prior notice issued under Sec.10 of the Carriers Act.  There is no proof to show the price of damaged and misplaced articles are Rs.33,000/-.  They prayed that the appeal be allowed.

6.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective, and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed?

7.         We have heard the matter in detail.  We propose to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission. 

8.         It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of goods and the same were transported by the respondents herein, evidenced under ExA.3 consignment note.  The appellants urged that transportation charges of Rs.6,100/- were not paid.  The receipt as well as the consignment note show that an amount of Rs.6,100/- was received towards transportation charges.  The fact that an amount of Rs.3,600/- was due, was not mentioned either in these bills or receipts. 

9.         It is not in dispute that the goods were delivered by the appellant on 03.05.2007.  On the reverse of the consignor’s copy terms and conditions, the fact that these items were not received was made a mention.  The complainant made the endorsement on the very same day.  It reads as follows-

“I received 13 items with counting of bed parts.  I received my T.V with damage condition.  I do not received my Pkg.No.11, 12 and 13 i.e. 11 – T.V.Speaker (Both) 12 – Carry Bag (Clothes) 13 – Mixer Grinder.  The approximate cost of missing item is about Rs.33,000/-.”

The very appellants have filed the copy of the same.  Now,  it is too late a day to contend that this fact was not intimated to the appellants. 

10.       The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the consignment was taken at owners risk and that the goods were not insured, and therefore, they were not liable to pay any amount.  It may be stated herein that at no point of time the appellants insisted that the goods had to be insured, and if goods were not insured they were not going to transport the goods.  Having taken liability of transporting the goods to Hyderabad and no condition was imposed that the said goods have to be insured, the appellants are not entitled to raise this plea, which was not rightly taken in the counter.  It is contended that no notice under Carriers Act was issued prior to filing of the complaint.  Along with the appeal, the appellants themselves had filed notice dated 28.06.2007, wherein there was a mention about the complainant’s notice dated 15.06.2007 for the consignment received on 03.05.2007. Therefore, this contention has no legs to stand.  The price of the goods was mentioned on the reverse of Ex.A.3 itself. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the District Forum has appreciated the facts in correct perspective and there is no point worthy to take up the appeal.  This is a fit case where the appeal could be disposed of at the threshold namely, at the stage of admission.

11.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs.  The appellants are directed to pay the awarded amount within six weeks.          

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

DT-22.04.2008.

Vvr.