F.A.No.469/2009 against  C.C.No.04/2009 , District Forum, NALGONDA.

Between:

1. NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT

    Rep. by its Agent, K.Vidyasagar

    S/o.Bixamaiah, R/o.Opp. Sakshi

    Office, Mothkur (Vill. & Mandal)

    Nalgonda District.

2. NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT

    Rep. by its Agent Beema Shankar

    R/o.Bhavani Mandir Road,

    Near Railway Station,

    Zaheerabad (V & M), Nalgonda District.                           Appellants/

                                                                                                 Opp.parties

And

MR.PASUNURU VIJAYA KUMAR

S/o.Sri Raja Mallaiah, Hindu,

R/o.H.No.2-83/C,

Bujalapuram Village,

Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District.                                    Respondent/

                                                                                                 Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants: M/s R.Chakradhar

Counsel for the Respondent: Respondent served.

 QUORUM:   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT                                                           

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

.                                                                 

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***

        This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties, Navata Road Transport, against the order of the District Forum in directing them to pay Rs.4,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs for non delivery of consignment entrusted to them in time.

        The case of the complainant in brief is that he entrusted  2 quintals of rice to the appellant transport company at Mothkur branch in order to deliver the same at Zaheerabad evidenced under way bill dated 29-11-2008.  However, the said consignment was not delivered even after expiry of 85 days, which constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the transport corporation and therefore claimed Rs.30,320/- under various heads as detailed in his complaint.

        The appellants resisted the case.  They allege that the Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies had seized two quintals of rice of the complainant while in transport.  When the said fact was informed to the complainant, he approached the concerned authorities.  In fact the Joint Collector, Medak directed to deliver the goods and the same were received by him on 30-4-2009.  For the seizure that was made by the Tahsildar, they cannot be accused stating that there was deficiency in service and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

        The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence.

        The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record had  opined that the appellant, transport company, had to safeguard the consignment which was seized from its possession and see that the goods be immediately delivered to the consignor, and  delay in delivery and damage to goods amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, it directed them to pay Rs.4,000/- towards compensation being the market value of two quintals of rice on that day together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant transport company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts of the case in correct perspective.  When the seizure was made by Civil Supplies Department, an authority empowered to seize the goods, it should not find fault and it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on its part and therefore awarding of compensation is unjust and prayed for allowing the appeal.

        It is an undisputed fact that the complainant entrusted two quintals of rice to the appellant transport company in order to deliver the same at Zaheerabad on 29-11-2008.  While so, while the consignment was in transport, the Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies had seized the said stock on 05-12-2008 evidenced under seizure certificate.  It is also not in dispute that immediately the complainant was informed about the seizure and after coming to know of it, he approached the concerned officials and filed petition to Joint Collector and he by his order dated 24-2-2009 directed release of two quintals of rice to the complainant.  Pursuant to the said orders, the said rice was released to him under acknowledgment dated 30-4-2009. 

The complainant’s allegation that the consignment was not delivered to him by the appellant and therefore, he had sustained loss and sought recovery of the same from the appellant.  This is a clear case where instead of filing a complaint against the civil supplies authorities if he were of the opinion that the seizure was illegal, he turned round and filed case against the appellant transport company to recover the price of the rice.  In fact the rice  seized by the Civil Supplies Department was directed to be released to him and he had taken delivery of the same on 30-4-2009.  When the proceedings in regard to seizure were before the competent authority and in fact the authority had passed an order of release of rice, at no stretch of imagination, the appellants can be held guilty for retaining rice for all these period.  Obviously this is a case of transfer of Malice.  Instead of filing case against civil supplies department, he filed against the appellant transport company, which has nothing to do when the seizure of the material took place from its custody.  In the circumstances, we do not see any deficiency in service on the part of the transport company.  There are no merits in the complaint.

In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Whatever the amount deposited by the appellants be returned to them on his filing an appropriate petition, after expiry of revision time.

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                     Dt.02-12-2010