Date of filing:17.08.2013
Date of disposal:10.09.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 10th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.122/2013
Between:
Sree Devi Silk Fabrics,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
D.Thulasi Das S/o D.Pullappa,
D.No.11/778, Thogata Street,
Dharmavaram Town,
Ananthapurmu District. … Complainant
Vs.
1. The Agent, ANL Parcel Service,
APSRTC Bus Stand,
Dharmavaram,
Ananthapuramu District.
2. The Manager,
ANL Parcel Service Head Office,
5-9-30/1/5B, Road No.4,
Basheerbag, Palace Colony,
Near (Paigah Plaza),
Hyderabad. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu and Sri K.Jagadeeswar Reddy, Advocates for the complainant and Sri N.Ravikumar Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.1,14,450/- towards worth of sarees lost, Rs.6,867/- toward interest @ 24% P.A. on Rs.1,14,450/- from 24.04.2013 to 24.07.2013 Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint and Rs.1,000/- towards notice charges.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: -The complainant is a permanent resident of Dharmavaram Town and he is the proprietor of Sree Devi Silk Fabrics. The complainant is eking out his livelihood by selling sarees and the complainant as usual sent 8 boxes containing 194 silk sarees worth about Rs.3,15,600/- to Kasam Punnam Sarees Centre, Warangal through the 1st opposite party on 24.04.2012 vide receipt No.04353844. The said parcel reached Warangal on 02.05.2013 and when the consignee took delivery 3 boxes were missing out of 8 boxes. Then the said proprietor of Kasam Punnam Sarees Centre, Warangal called the 2nd opposite party’s Claim Department Manager and opened the boxes in the presence of the Claim Department Manager of the 2nd opposite party and found that 66 sarees were missing which was worth about Rs.1,14,450/- and the same was endorsed on the letter head of Kasam Punnam Sarees Centre, Warangal. As per the invoice the worth of the sarees was Rs.1,14,450/- which were missing was informed to the complainant by the consignee. The consigner i.e., the complainant enquired with the 1st opposite party with regard to the missing 3 boxes but there was no proper response from the 1st opposite party. As there was no proper response from the 1st opposite party the complainant got issued a legal notice on 26.06.2013 to the opposite parties 1& 2 which were served on them. The 2nd opposite party gave a reply on 02.07.2013 stating that they are pursuing the matter with the concerned branches and will revert back shortly. But even after three months there was no any information from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant has to suffer mentally and financially due to the loss of 3 boxes containing silk sarees worth Rs.1,14,450/-. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and they are liable to compensate the loss along with Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and interest on the cost of the lost sarees.
3. The counsel for the 1st opposite party filed counter stating that the allegations made in the complaint are not true and they are invented for the purpose of claiming compensation. The 1st opposite party submitted that as per the terms and conditions of this opposite party, this opposite party is liable only to pay a sum of Rs.5/- per K.G. and agreeing to the said terms and conditions the complainant signed on the receipt. The 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant did not disclose the contents of the boxes at the time of booking and the complainant did not furnish any invoice copy. The 1st opposite party submitted that it is true the complainant has sent 8 boxes and out of 8 boxes 5 boxes were delivered to the consignee and 3 boxes were missing. The 1st opposite party submitted that they are trying to trace out the said boxes and as soon as they are traced the same will be delivered to the consignee. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that out 8 boxes, 5 boxes were delivered to the consignee and the remaining 3 boxes were pending delivery out of the said parcel there was no mention on the boxes that how many sarees contain in each box and what is the cost of each box which have been not delivered. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as he has not paid any amount towards the transport charges. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Further the 1st opposite party summited that as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party all the disputes arising out of transactions are subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction therefore this complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed memo adopting the counter of 1st opposite party.
5 Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2?
ii) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and no documents marked on behalf of 1st opposite party.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant herein is a permanent resident of Dharmavaram Town and he is the owner of Sree Devi Silk Fabrics and the complainant is earning his livelihood by selling sarees. The counsel for the complainant submitted that as usual the complainant had booked 8 boxes containing 194 sarees worth about Rs.3,15,600/- to Kasam Punnam Sarees Centre Warangal on 24.04.2013 through the 1st opposite party vide receipt No.04353844. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the invoice copy was also sent along with the parcel to the consignee. The counsel for the complainant submitted that out of 8 boxes sent by the complainant only 5 boxes reached the destination and the proprietor of the consignee has taken delivery of the said 5 boxes in the presence of the claims department manager of the 2nd opposite party and found that 66 sarees were missing which is worth about Rs.1,14,450/- the same was written on the letter pad of the consignee and endorsed by the proprietor of Kasam Punnam Sarees Centre, Warangal . Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that the missing sarees were worth of Rs.1,14,450/- as per the invoice and the same is marked as Ex.A3. The counsel for the complainant argued that as the opposite parties have failed to deliver 3 boxes containing 66 sasrees which were worth about Rs.1,14,450/- and so far they have not taken any action to trace out the said boxes and their by caused deficiency of service and mental agony to the complainant. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that even after issuing legal notice on 26.06.2013 to the opposite parties 1 & 2 which were served on them there was no action taken by the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party has given a reply notice stating that they are pursuing the matter with the concerned branches and revert back as soon as they receive the information but even after a lapse of three months the opposite parties have not taken any steps to trace out the boxes. Hence this complaint is filed against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.1,14,450/- towards the loss of sarees and interest on the said amount from the date of booking and till the date of realization and also a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and costs of the complaint.
9. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that it is true that the complainant has booked 8 boxes through the 1st opposite party which were worth about Rs.3,15,600/- as mentioned in the value of consignment. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the value of the consignment was mentioned as Rs.3,15,600/-,but the complainant did not furnish any invoice copy to the opposite parties at the time of booking. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that as the complainant has signed on the goods consignment note which clearly shows that the complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction as it is clearly mentioned on the goods consignment note that if any dispute arises is subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction only.
10. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant at the time of booking did not pay the transport charges, hence he is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that out of 8 boxes booked through the 1st opposite party 5 boxes were delivered to the consignee and 3 boxes were missing but the contents of those 3 boxes are not specific as there is no specific mention of the costs of the sarees contained in the 3 boxes which were lost. Hence, the claim of the complainant cannot be considered as the complainant did not furnish the invoice copy at the time of booking. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that they are still trying to trace out the missing 3 boxes but inspite of their best efforts they are not traced till date. Further the counsel for opposite parties argued that as the liability of the opposite parties is limited to a sum of Rs.5/- per K.G. as per the consignment note and they are liable to pay only compensation of Rs.5/- per K.G. as per the consignment note.
11. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents submitted by the complainant it is an admitted fact that the complainant has sent 8 boxes through the 1st opposite party to the consignee at Warangal and it is an admitted fact that out of 8 boxes, 5 boxes were delivered to the consignee and 3 boxes were missing. As seen from the documents i.e., Ex.A2, A3 & A4 it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A2 document that there were totally 194 sarees in the 8 boxes which were worth about Rs.3,15,600/- which is the invoice copy and as per Ex.A3 the missing sarees were identified by tallying with the invoice copy and Ex.A4 is the memo file by the counsel for complainant showing the details of the number of sarees missing and their individual cost which came to around Rs.1,1,4,450/- considering these three documents and after considering the argument of the opposite parties that the complainant has not mentioned the individual contents on the boxes at the time of booking. We are of the view that as the complainant has not furnished any details with regard to the cost of the sarees contained in each box hence the said amount cannot be considered. In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the amount claimed by the complainant is very high and the complainant could not establish the contents and costs of the missing 3 boxes. Hence we are convinced to allow a compensation of Rs.55,000/- out of the claim made by the complainant.
12. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards the loss of sarees and the said amount is payable within one month from the date of this order failing which interest shall be paid @9% P.A. from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 10th day of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES 1& 2
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Original parcel receipt bearing No.04353844 issued by the 1st opposite
party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of invoice No.48 dt.24.04.2013.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of dt.02.05.2013 is endorsement of 66 missing sarees obtained by
from the 2nd opposite party on Kasam Punnam Saree Centre, Warangal.
Ex.A4 List of missing sarees and rate of missing saress.
Ex.A5 Office copy of the legal dt.26.06.2013 got issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgements singed by the opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A7 Reply notice sent by the 2nd opposite party to the counsel for the complainant
dt.02.07.2013.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2
NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
