This C.C. came before us for final hearing in presence of Sri.B.Gangadhar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.D.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for opposite party; 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)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainant had joined in M.Pharmacy course at Ramakrishna college, Coimbattur and after completion of the said course, she booked a consignment at the opposite party company, to transport the same to the Branch of opposite party at Aswaraopet and paid Rs.355/- towards transportation charges and the opposite party had issued a receipt vide way bill No.93145705, but the luggage was not reached the complainant within prescribed time. The complainant further alleged that she contacted the branch offices of opposite party of Coimbatture, Vijayawada as well as Aswaraopet by phone but the opposite party failed to respond, accordingly the complainant had addressed a letter dt.28-5-2007, demanded to hand over the luggage, the opposite party gave a reply on 2-6-2007 and stated that the vehicle, which carries the consignment of the complainant, met with an unfortunate fire accident near Nellore, as such there is no liability of the opposite party. The complainant also alleged that the opposite party did not respond to give any information about the luggage and after a period of 60 days, they informed the fire accident through a letter, and the attitude of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service, as such the complainant filed the complaint by praying an amount of Rs.87, 250/- towards worth of the luggage and Rs.50,000/- towards damages.
Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit, and also filed
1) Particulars of the No.of items, booked by the complainant
2) Xerox copy of way bill No.931445705, dt.2-4-2007
3) Postal acknowledgments (3) in number
4) Letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party
5) Reply letter, dt.2-6-2007 addressed by the opposite party
After receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through it’s counsel and filed counter by denying allegations made in the complaint.
As per the counter, the opposite party contended that they promptly loaded the consignment of the complainant in to the lorry bearing No.KA-25/B-5248, which was met with an accident near Nellore on 9-4-2007 and it was fully burnt along with other consignments and accordingly, a complaint was made to the police, Kodavaluru under F.I.R.No.41/2007 and also informed to the fire department about the incident. The opposite party also contended that they also informed the complainant about the incident and it is an unexpected event and beyond the control of the opposite party and also made a contention that there is a condition to that effect was printed on the way bill as such there is no deficiency of service as there is no negligence and intentional act on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
Along with the counter, the opposite party filed Xerox copies of
1) Report made by the Station Fire Office, Nellore, dt.9-4-2007 to the S.I. of police, Kadavaluru
2) F.I.R. No.41/2007, dt.9-4-2007
In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now the point for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed?
Point:
As seen from the averments of the complaint and counter, there is no dispute regarding the booking of consignment by the complainant, but the only dispute with regard to non-delivery of consignment to the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that the lorry, which carries the consignment, was burnt in an unfortunate fire accident near Nellore on 9-4-2007, as such there is no liability on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint, to prove its contention the opposite party filed report of Fire Officer, Nellore and F.I.R. dt.9-4-2007, as per the said documents , the lorry bearing No.KA-25B-5248, met with a fire accident and burnt along with the consignments and as per the material filed by the complainant, the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party for non delivery of her luggage, and the opposite party gave a reply on 2-6-2007 and expressed their inability to deliver her luggage by the reason, that the luggage was totally burnt in a fire accident, it clearly shows that, the opposite party had responded to give it’s reply with cause of non delivery of her luggage. As such there is no negligence on the part of opposite party and moreover as per the consignment way bill, which was filed by the complainant, clearly mentioned that the consignment was booked at “owner’s risk”, it indicates, if there is any unfortunate or unexpected events, there is no liability of the consignee. As such in view of the above discussion, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, as there is no willful negligence on the part of them, and we feel that the accident occurred due to accidental fire and as such the point is answered against the complainant.
In the result, the C.C. is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 29th day of April, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum Khammam
