BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad,B.A.,LL.B. President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 30th day of June, 2008
C.C.No. 151/07
Between:
K. Manikya Rao, S/o. N.K. Venkata Rao,
R/o. D.No.80-51A, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool-518002. …Complainant
Versus
1. Sri Ram Mohan, Manager, D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo Limited, Kurnool Branch Office, Kurnool-1,
Frachise by side of Sri Narayana Murthy Petrol Bunk, Upstairs of B.T.N.Tailors, Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.
2. The Branch Manager, D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo Limited,
Kallur Road, Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.R.Murali Krishna, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.151/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 11 & 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay Rs.60,000/- returned advance amount, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, cost of the complaint and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant received a legal notice from M.Murali Mohan Reddy on 7-9-2007, issued on behalf of his client R. Srinivasulu, for giving suitable reply to the said notice, the complainant sent a Xerox copy of said notice along with parawise remarks through opposite parties booking point in Krishna Nagar, vide consignment No.H.40703278 dated 8-9-2007 to his counsel who is his brother-in-law Sri. K. Mahesh at Dhone. In normal course, the cover has to reach the addressee the next day, but in this case the cover was delivered on 19-9-2007 after lapse of 11 days. As the complainant’s counsel did not receive and issue reply notice to R. Srinivasulu the complainant was compelled to return the advance of Rs.60,000/- taken by him in pursuance of agreement entered on 25-8-2007 by him and R. Srinivasulu. Due to inordinate delay in delivering of the cover by opposite parties the complainant is at a loss of Rs.60,000/- and the very purpose of sending the cover has been defeated. Therefore, the negligent acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service towards the complainant.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) legal notice dated 6-9-2007 issued by R. Srinivasulu to complainant, (2) courier receipt dated 8-9-2007, (3) agreement between complainant and R. Srinivasulu, (4) receipt issued by R. Srinivasulu to the complainant dated 16-9-2007 and (5) delivery run sheet issued by opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and III party and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and contested the case by filling written version by opposite party No.1 and adoption memo by opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that the complainant booked a cover on 8-9-2007 to K. Mahesh Advocate at Dhone and said cover reached Dhone on 9-9-2007 and when the delivery messenger tried to deliver the cover the addressee was not available and the addressee told to the messenger that he was in Bethamcherla. Therefore, the opposite parties could not deliver the cover to the addressee. The complainant alleges that he has sent Xerox copy of Lawyers notice issued by M. Murali Mohan Reddy, Advocate and a copy of parawise remarks in the cover, but parawise remarks are not filed into the case. The complainant also pleaded that he executed a sale agreement in favour of one Srinivasulu under said agreement the complainant received Rs.60,000/- from the purchaser R. Srinivasulu as advance and for execution of said agreement the purchaser issued notice to the complainant and for giving reply the complainant sent the said notice to the addressee in Dhone. The opposite party submits that it is for the complainant to receive the balance amount under the agreement from the purchaser and execute the agreement, if he failed to do so, he can enter into another agreement in favour of R. Srinivasulu. The opposite party submits that they are not aware of what was between the complainant and Srinivasulu and it has no bearing at all and the damages sought by the complainant is very high and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs and compensation of Rs.30,000/-.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties did not file any documents but relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in reiteration of his written version averments and exchanged replies to the interrogatories.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to ?.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a cover to Dhone on 8-9-2007 through opposite parties vide Ex.A2 for sending a Xerox copy of legal notice dated 6-9-2007 (Ex.A1) issued by M. Murali Mohan Reddy , Advocate to the complainant and parawise remarks on the said notice. In normal course the said cover has to reach Dhone the next day, but the said cover was served on the addressee on 19-09-2007 as per Ex.A5. On the other side the opposite parties in their written version alleges that the said cover reached Dhone on 9-9-2007, as the addressee was not available, the said cover was not served and submitted that the delivery boy contacted the addressee on phone and the addresse stated that he is in Bethamcharla. In support of their contention the opposite parties side did not file any cogent supporting material nor any affidavit of the delivery boy is filed nor any contact number of the addressee is filed. The III party affidavit of K. Mahesh (addressee on the cover) submitted that he was in Dhone and did not went to Bethamcharla and also stated that the delivery boy did not contacted him on phone. In the absence of any supporting material, it cannot be said that the addressee was not available in the address mentioned on the cover for delivering the cover. Hence, there appears clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in serving the cover on the addressee on 19-9-2007, after a delay of 11 days.
9. The complainant in his complaint averments submits that he sent a Xerox copy of Ex.A1 and parawie remarks on Ex.A1 to the addressee at Dhone to give suitable reply to Ex.A1. The III party addressee K. Mahesh in reply to the interrogatories filed a Xerox copy of letter said to be parawise remarks of complainant sent to K. Mahesh, said to be sent in the said courier cover, on going through the parawise remarks it appears that it is not a parawise remarks, but a reply letter of complainant addressed to M. Murali Mohan Reddy, Advocate, hence it cannot be said to be parawise remarks of complainant sent to K. Mahesh through courier cover. Hence, from the above what remains clear is that the contends what the complainant sent in the courier cover is not proved. Hence, the claim of the complainant that he was compelled to return the amount of Rs.60,000/- to R. Srinivasulu as he could not give reply to Ex.A1 can not be looked into and the said claim in for Rs.60,000/- is rejected.
10. To sum up, the opposite parties are negligent only to the extent of non delivery of cover of complainant to the addressee within time and has taken 11 days for delivering the cover is certainly amounting to deficiency of service and for said deficiency the opposite parties has to compensation by paying Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as costs.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the above award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of June, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Legal notice, dated 6-9-2007 issued R. Srinivasulu
to the complainant.
Ex.A2. Courier receipt, dated 8-9-2007 for sending copy of Ex.A1
Ex.A3. Agreement between complainant and R. Srinivasulu.
Ex.A4. Receipt issued by R. Srinivasulu to the complainant dated 16-9-2007.
Ex.A5. Delivery run sheet issued by opposite party.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
