BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1123/2008 against C.C. 679/2007, Dist. Forum-I, Visakapatnam
Between:
Sree Balaji Engineering Corporation
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Tadikonda Bapanayya Gupta
S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy
Age: 42 years, At 31-32-50
Leela Mahal Junction, Visakapatnam. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1) Transport Corporation of India Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
Opp. Dist. Court Campus
Prakasharaopet, Visakapatnam..
2) Transport Corporation of India Ltd.
1st Managing Director, At 1-8-271 to 273
3rd Floor, Ashoka Bhopal Chambers
S.P. Road, Secunderabad-500 003. *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. G. Ramagopal.
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. S. Harshavardhanlal.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) Dis-satisfied with the order of the Dist. Forum the complainant preferred the appeal.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it placed an order for supply of pump set from Kirloskar Brothers, Maharashtra under invoice dt. 5.11.2005 the cost of which was Rs. 13,590/-. It was despatched through respondent transport corporation, however it did not receive the same. When informed R1 demanded it to pay Rs. 275/- towards freight and handling charges. Accordingly on 23.1.2006 it had paid by submitting the original delivery challan along with Photostat copy of invoice. However, it was not delivered. He had sustained not only financial loss but also suffered mental agony, and therefore claimed the value of pump set together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs.
3) The respondent resisted the case. While denying each and every allegation made in the complaint it alleged that when the representative of the complainant came for verification and delivery of consignment which was said to have been booked by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers they informed that they did not receive any such consignment. In fact the complainant did not book the consignment. It had simply placed an order for supply of pump set to be delivered to one of its clients. M/s. Kirloskar Brothers is a necessary party, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of the case filed the affidavit evidence of its Managing Partner and got Exs. A1 to A8 marked while the respondents filed the affidavit evidence of its Branch Manager and did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that on the basis of Ex. A1 bill of sale-cum-delivery challan issued by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., the respondent had collected freight charges of Rs. 275/- vide Ex. A3, and therefore it was bound to deliver the consignment which it has failed which amounts to deficiency in service, and therefore directed it to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have awarded the value of the pump set of Rs. 13,590/- and that the compensation awarded is too low, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed by allowing his complaint.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant placed an order on M/s. Kriloskar Brothers Ltd., manufacturers of pump sets for supply of a pump set valued at Rs. 13,590/- vide Ex. A1 bill of sale-cum-delivery challan. It was entrusted to the respondent vide Ex. A2 consignment note. On the request made
by the respondent for delivery of consignment the complainant had paid Rs. 275/- vide Ex. A3 receipt. The complainant in fact informed the respondent that the consignment was not delivered by his letter Ex. A4 followed by registered legal notice Ex. A5 and it was received by the respondent evidenced under acknowledgement Ex. A6. It did not choose to give any reply. Having undertaken to deliver the consignment, necessarily the respondent was bound to return the consignment or pay the value of the same. The respondent could not explain as to what happened to the said consignment. In the light of overwhelming documentary evidence, undoubtedly the complainant is entitled to the value of the consignment though the complainant alleged that there was financial loss, no evidence whatsoever was filed. The Dist. Forum somehow did not direct the respondent to pay the value of the consignment covered under Ex. A2. Necessarily it must have been by inadvertence. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- that was awarded cannot be said to be low when the very value of the pump set was Rs. 13,590/-.
9) In the result the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently the order of the Dist. Forum is modified directing the respondents to pay Rs. 13,590/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 5.11.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in the appeal. Rest of the order of the Dist. Forum viz., Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 26. 11. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
