This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri Md. Azeez Pasha, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and 3; opposite party No.1 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant has been running a small offset printing press at Khammam town for his livelihood.  For the purpose of printing, he intended to purchase ink tins from the opposite party No.1, deposited Rs.5,200/- as per it’s advises on 06-05-2015 in its account vide bearing No.302310100003321.  Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 sent ink tins to the complainant through the courier service of opposite parties No.2 &3, due to non delivery of consignment, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 after having waited for considerable period.  At that time, the complainant found that the ink tins were kept in damaged condition at the office of opposite party No.3, immediately, the complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 and 2.  As there was no response, issued legal notice on 12-06-2015.  The notice of opposite party No.1 was returned as refused, despite service of notices, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not respond to give any reply.  Due to which, the complainant suffered a lot and filed the present complainant by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,200/-, deposited by him towards purchase of ink tins and Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony together with interest at 12% per annum and costs.  

3.      In support of his case the complainant filed affidavit and also filed some documents, those were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4.

4.      After having receipt of notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed their counter.   As the notice of opposite party No.1 was not served, issued hand summons to the complainant for service of notice, which was served on 26-04-2017 through courier service, but failed to file its counter.

          In their counter the opposite parties No.2 and 3 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Since the complainant is not consumer to them, the complainant has no local standi to file the present complaint.   Further they also submitted that the opposite party No.1 is only responsible to take care of ink bottles while booking the parcel with the opposite party No.2.  The opposite parties No.2 and 3 are not liable to the alleged leakage / damage while on the transportation of goods except in the event of accidents, which is clearly mentioned in the consignment form.   The complainant purchased ink tins from the opposite party No.1, its office is located at Secunderabad and as such there is no liability on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

According to the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the complainant is the owner of a small offset printing press.  He deposited Rs.5,200/- on 06-05-2015 in the account of opposite party No.1 vide its bank account No. 302310100003321 through the Syndicate Bank, Wyra Road Branch, Khammam Town for purchasing of ink tins for his printing press.   After receipt of said amount, the opposite party No.1 booked a consignment with the opposite party No.2 for delivery of ink tins to the complainant from Secunderabad to Khammam.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party No.3 failed to deliver the consignment even after lapse of considerable period.  When the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 for enquiry about non-delivery of consignment, he observed that the ink tins were lying in the office of opposite party No.1 in damaged condition.  Immediately, made a representation to the opposite parties.  As there was no response in refund of amount even after making many representations and issuance of legal notice, filed the present complaint by praying to award damages towards monitory loss and sufferance.  On the other hand the opposite party No.1 failed to contest the matter even after service of notice through hand summons.  The opposite parties No.2 and 3 denied their liability on the grounds of maintainability of complaint and lacking of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It is the contention of opposite parties No.2 and 3 that they have no consumer and service provider relationship with the complainant and the office of opposite party No.1 is also situated at Secunderabad, so, this Forum has lacks its territorial jurisdiction, therefore, there is no liability to pay the alleged damages on the part of them.  After having considered the above facts and circumstances and the material available on record, it is clear that the complainant was deposited Rs.5,200/- in the account of opposite party No.1 for purchasing of ink bottles in the  Wyra Road Branch, Syndicate Bank, situated at Khammam town.  In our view the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  In turn the opposite party No.1 consigned the ink tins through the opposite parties No.2 and 3 for delivery of the same to the complainant, accordingly, the contract, entered by the complainant and the opposite party No.1 for purchasing of ink tins is concluded when the ink tins are to be delivered to the complainant.  In fact, the ink tins in dispute were not delivered to the complainant till the date of complaint.  As per complaint, the ink tins were kept with the office of opposite party o.3 in damaged condition, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not deny the same, leveled against them.  No doubt, it is clear that the alleged damage was caused in the custody of opposite parties No.2 and 3.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favor of complainant by holding that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 are liable to compensate the monitory loss caused to the complainant together with payment of damages for causing mental agony.     

6.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to pay Rs.5,200/- towards cost of ink tins together with interest @9% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant i.e. 06-05-2015 till its realization.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 10^th day of October, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.