Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/18/2019

Dommeti SriRamulu, S/o satyanarayana, Represented by N.C.S.M.Prasad, President, National Association of Consumers) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory, Navata Road Transport - Opp.Party(s)

National Association of Consumers (NAC)

12 Jul 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                              Filing Date: 09-01-2019                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: 12-07-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                                Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 FRIDAY THE TWELTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.18/2019

Between

Sri.Dommeti Sri Ramulu, S/o. Satyanarayana,

Aged about 31 years, residing at # 22-8-257/4,

Plot No.138, Upadhyaya Nagar, Karakambadi Road,

TIRUPATI – 517507.

 

(Represented by Sri.N.C.S.M. Prasad, President,

National Association of Consumers (NAC),

# 531, Balaji Colony, TIRUPATI – 517502).                                 … Complainant

 

And

1. The Authorised Signatory, Navata Road Transport,

# 19-42-M36-317, Old Tiruchanoor Road,

TIRUPATI – 517501.

 

2. The Authorised Signatory, Navata Road Transport,

# 2352, BHEL Old MIG, Near Nallagandla Flyover,

Sherlingampally, HYDERABAD – 500050.                       … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 28.06.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Avula Purushotham, counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the new house hold articles in the place of damaged household articles and to pay compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for  mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

        2.The brief facts of the case are: The complainant had booked the household articles from Hyderabad to Tirupati in Navatha Road Transport, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad branch on 10.12.2018 vide bill No.45682 and paid freight charges of Rs.3,467/-. The complainant further submits that at the time of booking, the opposite parties collected Rs.1200/- cash towards packing charges but they refused to issue receipt. The complainant further submits that on 17.12.2018 when he went to opposite party’s branch in Tirupati to take delivery of his household articles, all the articles are found broken and damaged and not fit for usage. Hence he asked the opposite parties to replace the new household articles in the place of damaged articles, but they refused to do so. Hence the complainant got issued legal notice on 19.12.2018. After receipt of the said notice, the head office of opposite party Vijayawada gave reply on 02.01.2019 stating that the transport  vehicle which was assigned to carry the said articles of the complainant met with an accident and  as per their procedure they can compensate for the value, equal to the repair charges to the extent of damage occurred to its household articles. Alternatively they shall forward the case to their insurers, who in turn compensate the total value which was mentioned in “F-Note” by the complainant on 10.12.2018 at the time of booking. And also stated that the authorized persons will come and assess the value as per the evidence produced by the complainant to resolve the issue. But till the date of filing of the complaint they failed to resolve the same. Hence he faced much inconvenience as the household articles which were damaged in the transit are very much essential for the complainant for day to day life as those are included with (Fridge, Washing Machine, Double Cot and Mattress). Hence as the opposite party failed to resolve the issue even after several requests made by the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of them, he filed the present complaint.

        3. Opposite party No.1 filed the written version and same was adopted by opposite party No.2. In the written version the opposite party No.1 admitted the booking of the household articles by the complainant from Navata Transport, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad to Tirupati, but as per the F-Note, the opposite parties are not entertaining the household goods for transportation. Hence they bluntly refused for booking of the said articles. But as per the request made by the complainant, on humanitarian grounds they agreed for the same and collected the transport charges on 10.12.2018 Vide L.R.No.45682 and the complainant himself filled the F-Note with the details of the consignment which includes the number of articles, origin and delivery location address details, value of the goods and same is signed by him. The opposite parties further stated that at the time of booking they have explained the terms and conditions of the transportation services to the complainant, which were accepted and signed in the LR.

         4. The opposite parties further stated that, as per the procedure they can compensate the value equal to the repair charges to the extent of damage occurred to the articles as per evidence. Alternatively the opposite parties shall forward the case to the insurers, who in turn will be compensating for the total value declared in the F-Note as referred supra, upon surrendering of the articles which are identified as damaged during transit. The opposite parties further stated that the lorry which was coming from Hyderabad to Tirupati met with an accident at Gadwal and due to said reason only, the goods contained in the vehicle were damaged. Thus, the said damage occurred due to act of god but not due to any negligence or fault of the opposite party. The opposite parties also paid the amounts to the owner of the goods as per their value and hence they have contacted the complainant to pay the value of goods of Rs.15,000/- to him. But he has not agreed and demanded for a huge sum. The opposite parties further stated that, the complainant instead of co-operating with the opposite party issued notice and got filed the  complaint by manipulating the way bill as by adding ‘1’ to 15,000/- to make it appear the value is 1,15,000/- in the place of Rs.15,000/-. Thus the complainant in order to get wrongful gain got filed the complaint with bundle of false and vexation allegations. The opposite party further submits that they are always ready and willing to pay value of the goods mentioned by the complainant in F- note at any time, if the complainant handed over the damaged goods. Hence the opposite parties stated that they tried so many times for resolving the issue but the complainant did not come forward to settle the issue. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on part of them.

         5. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:A1 to A4 were got marked. On behalf of the opposite parties one B.Raghuram, S/o. B.Padmanabham working as Manager in the first opposite party office, filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 was  got marked. Both the parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        6. Now the point for consideration is:-

        Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                   7.Point No:-  The main case of the complainant is, he booked his household articles from Hyderabad to Tirupati with the opposite party transport company on 10.12.2018 by paying freight charges Rs.3,467/- under Ex:A1 dt: 10.12.2018 and paid Rs.1200/- for packing of the said articles. But the above said articles were delivered in damaged condition by the opposite party in Tirupati branch as the opposite party vehicle met with an accident. Hence the complainant requested the opposite party to pay the value of the goods as they were completely damaged beyond repair and cannot be used further and in order to prove his contention he filed three photos of the damaged articles under Ex:A2. But the opposite parties failed to repay the cost of the articles hence he caused a legal notice on 19.12.2018 under Ex:A3. After receipt of the said notice the head office of the opposite party issued reply notice on dt: 02.01.2019 under Ex:A4. In the said notice the opposite party stated that, as per their procedure they can compensate for the value equal to the repairing charges to the extent of damage occurred to the household articles. But the complainant stated that, he is very much required household articles for his regular usage and he needs immediate replacement of new articles in the place of damaged articles and that the opposite party head office stated that, their authorized persons shall come and resolve the issue, but they failed to resolve the issue till the date of filing of the case, which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

                     8. The counsel for the opposite party admitted the booking of household articles by the complainant in their branch at Hyderabad to Tirupati. But the said articles were damaged, as the vehicle which carried those articles met with an accident and also further contended that at the time of booking, the terms and conditions of the transportation services to be rendered are explained and accepted by the complainant and as per their procedure the opposite parties can compensate the value equal to the repairing charges to the extent of damage occurred to some of the articles. The counsel for the opposite party submitted  in the present case also, opposite party will compensate the value declared i.e. Rs.15,000/- in the F-Note upon surrendering articles to them and thus opposite parties  agreed to pay the said sum from the insurance company, if the complainant co-operate with them. But instead of co-operating with the opposite party, the complainant issued notice and got filed the complaint by manipulating the way bill by adding ‘1’ to 15,000/- to make it appear 1,15,000/- value of articles mentioned  in the place of Rs.15,000/-. Thus the complainant in order to get wrongful gain hatched the plan and filed the complaint with all vexatious allegations. And also the counsel for the opposite party submitted that being a reputed transport company they never gave any trouble to their customers at any point of time are always ready and willing to pay the value of the goods mentioned by the complainant under Ex:B1 if the complainant handed over the damaged goods. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the opposite party is unable to deliver the goods because of the accident of the vehicle and it is act of god not due to any fault on their part. And also they have several times tendered to pay original value of the goods of the complainant but, the complainant not agreeing to receive the same and filed the present complaint.

                    9. After perusing the evidence placed by both the parties it is clear that, there is no dispute regarding the booking of the articles by the complainant with the opposite parties from Hyderabad to Tirupati as it was admitted by the opposite parties. The main dispute arose between the complainant and the opposite parties regarding the value of the goods. As per the contention of the complainant, the value of the goods mentioned in Ex:A1 is Rs.1,15,000/- but  in the waybill which was marked under Ex:B1 the value is mentioned as Rs.15.000/- in printed format. In Ex:A1 the way bill issued to the complainant  the value mentioned in writing and same was disputed by the opposite parties that the complainant  manipulated the value and mentioned as 1,15,000/- in the place of          15,000/-. But the counsel for the opposite party stated that the freight charges will be fixed basing on the value of the goods declared and in present case also they have collected Rs3,467/- for the value of goods of Rs.15,000/- and insured the same. The complainant in order to save the freight charges mentioned the less value of Rs 15,000/- at the time of booking the consignment. But at the time of filing complaint he manipulated the bill for Rs.1,15,000/- in order to get wrongful gain. In the present case the complainant failed to prove with any supportive evidence that the value is Rs.1,15,000/- when the said figure was disputed by opposite party, the figure of 1,15,000/-could not be considered as the complainant paid the freight charges of Rs.3,467/- only if at all the value is 1,15,000/- he might have paid more freight charges. The counsel for the opposite party stated that they are ready and willing to pay the value of the goods which was mentioned by the complainant in the way bill through their insurance company and also the counsel for the opposite party stated that the vehicle which carry the articles met with an accident and the goods were all damaged, that itself clearly indicates that the opposite party No.1 failed to take care of the goods while transporting to the destination.  It is the duty of the opposite party No.1 to take reasonable care while transporting goods with due care until those were handed over to their customers.  Hence some sort of negligence was also there on part of the opposite party No.1 in taking care of the goods while in transit. Hence to that extent deficiency in service can be attributed.

                   10. In the result,  complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the value of the goods which was mentioned in Ex:B1 i.e. Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of booking i.e. 10.12.2018 till realization. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the above said compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) also shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 12^th day of July, 2019.

            Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-                                               

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri Dommeti Sri Ramulu (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri B. Raghuram (Chief affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT Bill Receipt (Form No.08) bearing  Way Bill No.: F No.45682 for Rs.3,467/-. Dt: 10.12.2018.
	Photos 3 in Number of Damaged Articles.
	Notices sent to the Opposite Parties. Dt: 19.12.2018.
	Reply sent by the Opposite Parties. Dt: 02.01.2019.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT Bill Receipt (Form No.08)                                      bearing Way Bill No.: F No.F045682-7 for Rs.3,467/-. Dt: 08.12.2018.

 

 

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 and 2.