BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 09th day of July, 2010
C.C.No 108/09
Between:
1. Dr.M.Sreenivasulu, S/o M.Ramnarayana, Sree Venkateswara Orthopedic Clinic,
Shop No.48-F, Near Old RIMS Hospital Circle, Kadapa-516 001.
2. M.Jaya Prakash Reddy, S/o M.Ramana Reddy, J.P. Enterprises,
R/o. 50-752 A1, Tagore Nagar, Near Doctor C.Anjanappa House,
Kurnool-518 001.
…..Complainants
-Vs-
1. The Booking clerk ANL Parcel Services, A.P.S.R.T.C Complex,
Shop No.16, Kadapa-516 001.
2. The Incharge per Parcel Service, A.N.L. Parcel Services, A.P.S.R.T.C Complex,
West Block, Shop No.18,New Bus Stand, Kurnool-518 001.
3. The Vice President, A.N.L. Parcel Services,
Shop Bearing No.5-9-30/1/5/B, Road NO. 4, Bhasheer Bagh, Palas Colony, Hyderabad-500 063.
…Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. K. Gautham , Advocate, for complainant , and opposite party No. 1 and 3 called absent set ex-parte and Sri. C . Joga Rao , Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C C. No. 108/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP
(i) to pay the parcel goods worth of Rs.34,000/- amount with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of lost goods i.,e 09-09-2008.
(ii) to pay an amount of Rs.1,57,500/- service charges upon the lost goods.
(iii) to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation on for causing mental agony and hardship.
(iv) to pay cost of the complainant to award interest @ Rs.180/- p.a from the date of missing goods.
(iv) to pass such order a relief as the Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is as follows:- The 1st complainant is a Orthopedic Doctor . The 2nd complainant used to run business under the name style J.P. Enterprises. The 2nd complainant used to supply medical Implants to the Orthopedic Doctors . On 09-09-2008 the 1st complainant parceled Orthopedic Implants to the 2nd complainant through OP.No.1 courier office. The said parcel was addressed to the 2nd complainant . The said parcel was not delivered to the 2nd complainant . After knowing that the 1st complainant sent the parcel , the 2nd complainant met OP.No.2 and enquired about the parcel. OP.No.2 gave a complaint in IVth Town Police Station regarding the missing of the parcel. The 2nd complainant purchased the lost goods from Sharma Surgical Private Limited under a bill for Rs.33,342/- .The 1st complainant used to receive surgical implants from Orthopedic dealers and he used to pay Rs.1500/- towards service charges. The 2nd complainant sustained loss of Rs.34,000/- towards Orthopedic Implants. They also sustained loss of Rs.1,57,500/- towards service charges upon the lost goods. Inspite of demand notice got issued by the 2nd complainant the Ops did not come forward to pay Rs.34,000/- . Hence the complaint.
3. Ops 1 and 3 set ex-parte . OP No. 2filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. On 09-09-2008 the 1st complainant sent parcel to the 2nd complainant through OP.No.1 . The consignor has not revealed the contents of the parcel at the time of booking . The value of the articles sent by the 1st complainant is also not revealed to the OP.No.1. On 10-09-2008 after verification it was found that the parcel sent by the 1st complainant to the 2nd complainant was taken away by somebody. Immediately OP.No.2 gave a complaint in IVth police station and it was registered as Cr.No. 325/08 . At the time of giving the complaint the 2nd complainant went along with OP.No.2 to the police station and the 2nd complainant informed that the value of the lost parcel was at Rs.10,000/- . The bill of Sharma Surgical Private Limited for Rs.33,342/- is nothing to do with this case. As per the terms and conditions of CC note the maximum liability of the Ops is only Rs.100/- in the event of loss or damage of the parcel. The parcel booked by the complainant was neatly packed and sealed . The Ops are not aware of the contents of the said parcel. The parcel contents was only medical kit ,but not surgical Implants . The claimants are claiming excessive money . The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of Ops no document is marked. Sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Points1 & 2:- Admittedly on 09-09-2008 the 1st complainant booked parcel to the 2nd complainant through OP.No.1 . Ex.A1 is the copy of the goods consignment note dated 09-09-2008 . There is no dispute about the 1st complainant sending the parcel to the 2nd complainant on 09-09-2008 through OP.No.2 . Admittedly the said parcel was not delivered to the 2nd complainant by OP.No.2 at Kurnool. The 2nd complainant after knowing about the missing of the parcel gave a complaint in IVth Town Police Station , Kurnool. Ex.A2 is the copy of the FIR in Cr.No.325/08 of IVth Town Police station , Kurnool . In Ex.A2 it is mentioned that the parcel sent by the 1st complainant to the 2nd complainant was found missing and its worth is Rs.10,000/- . Admittedly the police referred the case after making investigation. The non delivery of the parcel to the 2nd complainant by the Ops amounts deficiency of service .
8. The complainants claimed Rs.34,000/- alleging that the worth of the parcel was Rs. 34,000/- .According to the Ops they are liable to pay only Rs.100/- in case of damage or loss of the parcel. In Ex.A1 goods consignment note it is mentioned that in the event of loss or damage to the parcel the liability of the Ops is limited to Rs .5 per kg of actual weight . In Ex.A1 the weight of the parcel is not mentioned. The Ops did not place any documentary evidence to show that their liability is to the extent of Rs.100/- only in case of damage or loss of the parcel.
9. It is the case of the complainants that the parcel contained Orthopedic Implants worth of Rs.34,000/- . In Ex.A1 descriptive particulars of the articles parceled are not at all mentioned. It is simply stated in Ex.A1 that the parcel contains medical kit. For the first time in the notice got issued by the complainants it is stated that the parcel contained Orthopedic Implants . The complainants also filed Ex.A5 retail invoice dated 19-10-2007 . There is no material to show that the parcel booked by the 1st complainant on 09-09-2008 contained the articles mentioned in Ex.A5 . The 1st complainant at the time of booking the parcel did not reveal that the parcel contained the Orthopedic Implants worth of Rs.34,000/- . As already stated the 1st complainant informed that the parcel contained the medical kit only . The 1st complainant having got it mentioned in Ex.A1 that the parcel contained only medical kit , now can give go by to it. There is no satisfactory evidence to come to the conclusion that the 1st complainant booked the parcel containing Orthopedic Implants mentioned in Ex.A5 .
10. It is the case of the OP.No.2 that a report was given to the police in the presence of 2nd complainant and that the 2nd complainant informed OP.No.2 that the value of the medical kit in the parcel was only Rs.10,000/- .Admittedly at an earliest point of time the 2nd complainant gave a report to police stating that the value of the parcel lost was Rs.10,000/- .Therefore I think it is just and proper to direct the Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the value of the parcel along with interest.
11. The claimants claim of Rs.1,57,500/- towards service charge and Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony .According to the complainants , the 2nd complainant used to supply the medical implants to the 1st complainant and the 1st complainant used to pay Rs.1500/- to the 2nd complainant towards service charges that on account of missing of the parcel the 2nd complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,57,500/- . The 2nd complainant is a business man . He used purchase and supply medical implants to Orthopedic Doctors . He has not produced his account books to show that he used to receive Rs.1500/- per day from the doctors to whom he supplied the medical implants . Even according to the 2nd complainant the implants that are said to have been lost by him are worth Rs.34,000/- The 2nd complainant might have purchased the said implants immediately after knowing that the parcel was lost. The claim of the claimants that they sustained a loss of Rs.1,57,500/- on account of the negligence on the part of the Ops is not sustainable. On account of negligence on the part of Ops , the complainants must have suffered mental agony . Therefore to meet ends of justice the complainants are awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- for causing mental agony .
12. .Point No:3- In the result , the complaint is partly allowed directing the Ops jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, towards value of the parcel lost , Rs.2,000/- for mental agony with interest at 9% p.a from the date of complaint i.e, 05-06-2009 till the date of payment and costs of Rs.500/- .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her ,corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 09th day of July , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE 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 Photo copy of Courier Parcel receipt bearing No.03916127.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of F.I.R dt.19-10-2008
Ex.A3. Office copy of Legal Notice issued by 2nd Complainant to OP2 and OP3.
Ex.A4. Reply notice dt. 11-04-2009 given by the OPs.
Ex.A5. SSEPL Retail Invoice dt.19-10-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/ Sd/-
MALE 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
