This Complaint coming before us for final hearing on       27-04-11 in the presence of Sri V.Siva Rama Krishna, advocate for complainant and of Sri K.Hari Babu, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

                The complaint filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a sum of Rs.35,000/- being value of U-MAX Digital cameras (10 in number), Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of business and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

2.      In brief the averments of complaint are these:

                The complainant is an employee in M/s.Today Computers, Guntur engaged in contract business i.e., identity cards and ration cards.  During the course of business, the complainant on 28-05-08 booked three packets, each packet containing 10 digital cameras at 1^st opposite party for delivery at 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party delivered two packets only.  Both the opposite parties did not respond properly regarding the undelivered packet.  The complainant got issued a notice on 03-01-09 to the opposite parties, who did not reply.  Each digital camera is worth of Rs.3500/-.  Due to short delivery of one box, the complainant incurred loss of business to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The opposite party failed to perform his obligation.   The conduct of opposite party caused mental agony.  The complaint therefore be allowed. 

3.     The 1^st opposite party adopted the version of 2^nd opposite party and their contention in brief is hereunder:

                The complainant booked three packets from Hyderabad to Guntur and the 2^nd opposite party delivered two packets to the complainant.  Another packet was not traced by that time in the Godown of opposite party and it was intimated to complainant.  The 1^st opposite party traced the third packet after 31-05-08 and kept it ready for delivery to the complainant. Neither address of complainant nor his telephone number was not known to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are not aware of contents of sealed packets.  The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.             Ex.A1 to A4 on behalf of complainant were marked.  No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are

1.Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

2.Whether the complainant has booked three packets of digital cameras?

3.Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?

4.To what relief?

6.      POINT No.1

                The opposite parties in their version admitted about the complainant booking three packets at Hyderabad and delivering two packets to the complainant at Guntur.  The contention of opposite party is that one such packet was not traced.  Certainly it amounted to deficiency of service as rightly contended by the complainant.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of complainant.

7.     POINT No.2

                The contention of complainant is that he booked three packets containing 10 digital cameras U-Max.  The contention of opposite party is that they are not aware of contents of those packets.  Ex.A1 is the cash receipt issued by 1^st opposite party on 28-05-08.  Under Ex.A1, the 1^st opposite party received Rs.120/- towards freight charges noting the date of delivery as 31-05-08.  Ex.A1 did not disclose either the value of packets or its contents.  On the reverse of Ex.A1 LR number was mentioned as 269804-3.  But on the front page of Ex.A1 LR number noted was 8034172.  The LR numbers noted on the front page of Ex.A1 and reverse of Ex.A1 did not tally.  The complainant did not file that lorry receipt. Ex.A1 is receipt of freight charges. In the absence of any particulars this Forum is unable to arrive at a conclusion in respect of the nature of goods contained in those packets.  For the above discussion, this point is answered in favour of opposite parties.

8.      POINT No.3

                On 27-04-11, the opposite party brought a box and it was opened in the court in the presence of Mr.V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, GM of M/s.Today Computers and counsel for opposite party.  The said box contained five UPS of Aura Company.  The said Chandrasekhar Reddy stated that those UPS did not belong to them. 

9.             It was already observed that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service by not delivering a packet to the complainant. Under those circumstances awarding a sum of Rs.2000/- towards deficiency of service will meet ends of justice.  Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of complainant.

10.    POINT No.4

                In view of above findings, in the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1.The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant and a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum this the 9^th day of May, 2011.

                    MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:    NIL   

                                                                                               Sd/-XXXX

                                                                                                PRESIDENT