M/s. SIRSE ROAD LINES, New Osman Gunj, Hyderabad- 12 V/S Sri. T. Veeranna Shetty S/o. Sri. T. Venkanna Shetty, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/69

Sri. T. Veeranna Shetty S/o. Sri. T. Venkanna Shetty, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. SIRSE ROAD LINES, New Osman Gunj, Hyderabad- 12 - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Raghavendra

24 Dec 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/69

Sri. T. Veeranna Shetty S/o. Sri. T. Venkanna Shetty, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. SIRSE ROAD LINES, New Osman Gunj, Hyderabad- 12 The Manager, M/s. SIRSE Road Lines, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by one T. Veeranna Shetty against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Transport Company U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to deliver 5 number of Desert Air Coolers in good condition and to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- including cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he purchased Desert Air Cooler in 5 numbers from M/s. Rajendra Traders, Hyderabad worth of Rs. 9,750/- and those goods booked in the office of opposite No-1 to transport them from Hyderabad to Raichur. Later those goods received from opposite No-2 Branch Office of opposite No-1. Complainant noticed the fact that, the said Air Coolers completely damaged in transportation accordingly he not took the delivery of those damaged goods and requested the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the cost of the goods or to supply other new Air Coolers of the same Brand, but opposite Nos. 1 & 2 shown their negligence in considering his request as such he filed this complaint against both opposite Nos. 1 & 2 for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite No-1 is placed Ex-parte. Opposite No-2 appeared through its Advocate, but not filed written version in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him. 4. In the circumstances stated above. Now the following points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he booked 5 new Desert Air Coolers in the office of opposite No-1 for to transport them from Hyderabad to Raichur and thereafter he noticed in the office of opposite No-2 that all the 5 new Desert Air Coolers damaged while transportation as such he not took the delivery of the said goods and requested the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to supply new Desert Air Coolers in place of damaged Air Coolers or to pay the cost of the said Air Cooler but both of them have shown their negligence in considering his request, as such both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as sated in the final order . (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed who is noted as PW-1 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are marked. 7. Opposite No-2 not filed written version and also not filed any affidavit-evidence by denying the claim of complainant. 8. In the circumstances stated above, we have appreciated the affidavit-evidence of the complainant PW-1 and documentary evidences produced before us. 9. It is a fact that, the complainant purchased 5 new Desert Air Coolers from M/s. Rajendra Traders, Hyderabad. Further from the affidavit-evidence of him, it is very much clear that, he booked all the 5 Desert Air Coolers in the office of opposite No-1 for to transport the said goods from Hyderabad to Raichur. 10. It is also a fact that, the complainant noticed in the office of opposite No-2 at Raichur that all the 5 new Desert Air Coolers damaged while transporting those goods from Hyderabad to Raichur. 11. Further documents are very much clear that, opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not responded properly to the request of complainant either to replace new Desert Air Coolers in place of damaged Air Coolers or they have not paid the cost of the goods to the complainant. This case of the complainant and his claim neither disputed by filing written version nor by way of filing affidavit-evidence, as such there are no grounds to reject the affidavit-evidence of the complainant, accordingly we accepted it and came to conclusion that, complainant proved the deficiency in service by these opposite Nos. 1 & 2, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 12. Ex.P-1 is the bill which clearly discloses the cost of Rs. 9,750/- of 5 new Desert Air Coolers, as such the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. 13. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of these opposite Nos. 1 & 2, we are of view that, directing the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to deliver new Desert Air Coolers in 5 numbers to the complainant is some what difficult and it may leads to further litigation, as such we have directed the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the cost of those goods as stated in the afore said Para. The complainant is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally under the head of deficiency in service. 14. The complainant is also entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. He also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 15,750/- from the date of this petition till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 15,750/- as stated in the body of this judgment from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 15,750/- from the date of this petition till realization of the full amount One month time is given to the opposites to make the above said payment to the complainant. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 24-12-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by one T. Veeranna Shetty against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Transport Company U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to deliver 5 number of Desert Air Coolers in good condition and to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- including cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he purchased Desert Air Cooler in 5 numbers from M/s. Rajendra Traders, Hyderabad worth of Rs. 9,750/- and those goods booked in the office of opposite No-1 to transport them from Hyderabad to Raichur. Later those goods received from opposite No-2 Branch Office of opposite No-1. Complainant noticed the fact that, the said Air Coolers completely damaged in transportation accordingly he not took the delivery of those damaged goods and requested the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the cost of the goods or to supply other new Air Coolers of the same Brand, but opposite Nos. 1 & 2 shown their negligence in considering his request as such he filed this complaint against both opposite Nos. 1 & 2 for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite No-1 is placed Ex-parte. Opposite No-2 appeared through its Advocate, but not filed written version in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him. 4. In the circumstances stated above. Now the following points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he booked 5 new Desert Air Coolers in the office of opposite No-1 for to transport them from Hyderabad to Raichur and thereafter he noticed in the office of opposite No-2 that all the 5 new Desert Air Coolers damaged while transportation as such he not took the delivery of the said goods and requested the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to supply new Desert Air Coolers in place of damaged Air Coolers or to pay the cost of the said Air Cooler but both of them have shown their negligence in considering his request, as such both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as sated in the final order . (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed who is noted as PW-1 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are marked. 7. Opposite No-2 not filed written version and also not filed any affidavit-evidence by denying the claim of complainant. 8. In the circumstances stated above, we have appreciated the affidavit-evidence of the complainant PW-1 and documentary evidences produced before us. 9. It is a fact that, the complainant purchased 5 new Desert Air Coolers from M/s. Rajendra Traders, Hyderabad. Further from the affidavit-evidence of him, it is very much clear that, he booked all the 5 Desert Air Coolers in the office of opposite No-1 for to transport the said goods from Hyderabad to Raichur. 10. It is also a fact that, the complainant noticed in the office of opposite No-2 at Raichur that all the 5 new Desert Air Coolers damaged while transporting those goods from Hyderabad to Raichur. 11. Further documents are very much clear that, opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not responded properly to the request of complainant either to replace new Desert Air Coolers in place of damaged Air Coolers or they have not paid the cost of the goods to the complainant. This case of the complainant and his claim neither disputed by filing written version nor by way of filing affidavit-evidence, as such there are no grounds to reject the affidavit-evidence of the complainant, accordingly we accepted it and came to conclusion that, complainant proved the deficiency in service by these opposite Nos. 1 & 2, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 12. Ex.P-1 is the bill which clearly discloses the cost of Rs. 9,750/- of 5 new Desert Air Coolers, as such the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. 13. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of these opposite Nos. 1 & 2, we are of view that, directing the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to deliver new Desert Air Coolers in 5 numbers to the complainant is some what difficult and it may leads to further litigation, as such we have directed the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the cost of those goods as stated in the afore said Para. The complainant is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally under the head of deficiency in service. 14. The complainant is also entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. He also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 15,750/- from the date of this petition till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 15,750/- as stated in the body of this judgment from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 15,750/- from the date of this petition till realization of the full amount One month time is given to the opposites to make the above said payment to the complainant. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 24-12-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.