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
Tuesday the 2nd day of September, 2008
C.C.No. 44/08
Between:
Bitchaiah, S/o. M. Seshanna,
C/o. Gayathri Opticals, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, ANL parcel Service,
RTC Bus complex, Banaganipalli, Kurnool District.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. N. Venkataramana Prasad, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. CH. Joga Rao, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.44/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay Rs.10,200/- with 12% interest, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony , Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant booked a parcel on 25-9-2007 vide receipt No.23133639 and paid Rs.100/- towards courier charges to Hyderabad from Banaganipalle with address “ New Style Opticals” near Jaya International Abids, Hyderabad. The said parcel contains two sets of Reban Frames worth Rs.5,000/- , eight sets of costly frames worth Rs.4,800/- and four pairs of costly glasses worth Rs.400/-. The said frames were sent to Hyderabad in order to fit the precision made lenses into them as per diagnosis of the patients. The complainant also booked another parcel to the above address on 3-10-2007 vide parcel receipt No.23133717 the said parcel contains 10 frames worth Rs.4,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.100/- towards courier charges. As the consignment did not reach the address the complainant enquired with the opposite party several times, but inspite of Mandal Consumer’s Councils representation the opposite party did not provide any information and responded negligently . Thereafter , the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties ,the opposite parties received the notice but did not reply. The above lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) ANL parcel receipt dated 25-09-2007 , (2) ANL Parcel receipt dated 3-10-2007, (3) bill Issued by Ashok Opticians to complainant for Rs.10,200/-,(4) bill by Issued Ashok Opticians to complainant for Rs.10,200/- , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 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 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant booked two couriers with address New Style Opticians on 25-9-2007 and 3-10-2007 . On receiving the information that the parcel did not reach its destiny the opposite party made enquiries and taken all steps that are required, lodged the complaint against the driver and cleaner of Hire Bus AP 21 X 0027 with the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C , Kurnool and also Station House officer IV town P.S. Kurnool. The opposite party also received a complaint from Banaganepalle Mandal Consumer Counsil dated 27-12-2007 and opposite party replied that, all efforts are made for tracing out the lost parcels . But at the time of booking the two couriers, the complainant did not reveal the contends in it and left all the columns blank in the booking receipts. The legal notice issued by the complainant was not receive by the opposite parties. The opposite party further submits that the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case as it is clear from the shipper copy that there is prominently printed subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction only. Hence the complainant has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant in this case claiming compensation which is excessive, exorbitant and imaginary as the contents of parcels were not reveled at the time of booking. As per the terms and conditions of CC note in the event of loss, damage, delay, non delivery the maximum liability of the company is only Rs.100/-. The parcel booked by the complainant is a packed and sealed one and the opposite party is not aware of the contents of the parcels and there is no declaration made in receipt about the contents of the parcels by the complainant at the time of booking. Hence, the opposite party never acted negligently in serving the said parcel to the addressee and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in non delivery of the above two couriers to the addressee and lastly seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) CC note 09808811 , (2) office copy of inter office memo dated 14-11-2007 , (3) letter dated 14-11-2007 addressed to APSRTC , Kurnool, (4) office copy of dated 14-11-2007 reported to the SHO , Kurnool, (5) letter dated 7-12-2007 of Consumer Council Banaganipalle and (6) office copy of reply of opposite party, dated 15-12-2007 to Ex.A5 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B6 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.?
8. It is the case of the complainant that he booked two parcels with opposite party vide Ex.A1 and A2. The Ex.A1 and A2 are the courier receipts issued by opposite party on 25-9-2007 and 3-10-2007 booked by consignor Gayathri Opticals to consignee New Style Opticals, Hyderabad , but the said two parcels did not reach the addressee i.e, Hyderabad and the said matter was put forth by the complainant to opposite party and Banaganepalle mandal consumer council and the opposite party replied stating that the matter is under perssuation and all efforts are being made to trace out the lost parcels. As there was no response, the complainant resorted to the forum. On the other side the opposite party admits that the booking of two parcels by the complainant to Hyderabad, and they were missing and the said parcels are not delivered to the addressee, but alleges that the contents and value of the parcels were not disclosed by the complainant at the time of booking in the consignment note and the maximum liability of the opposite parties is limited to Rs.100/- only.
9. The complainant in support of his case relied on Ex.A3 and A4 bills issued by Ashok Opticians to Gayathri Eye Opticals ( complainant ) In the said exhibits date is not mentioned and, nothing is there on record to show that the said articles are purchased before to the booking of said two parcels to Hyderabad and that the said two parcels contains the said purchased articles only. As there no material to substantiate that the said two lost parcels contain the articles purchased under Ex.A3 and A4, it cannot be said two parcels contain articles purchased under Ex.A3 and A4. More so from the perusal of Ex.A3 and A4 it appears to be a fabricated one to suit the needs of the case. Hence the documents relied by the complainant cannot be looked into nor can be relied.
10. The complainant in this case utterly failed to prove that the said two parcels contain articles purchased under Ex.A3 and A4. Hence, it remains clear that the two parcels booked by the complainant under EX.A1 and A2 are not delivered to its address and the same is admitted by opposite party. The terms and conditions printed on the courier receipts in Ex.A1 and A2 restricting their liability was neither signed by the complainant nor there is any evidence to show that the terms printed there in were shown to the consignor (complainant) or the same were agreed upon by the consignor. As per the decision of National Commission in Road Wings International Vs Hindustan Caper Limited reported in 1999 (3) CPJ Pg23, where the cover not was not signed by the consignor and the receipt did not constitute a special contract and that the liability need not be limited to the sum specified there in.
11. The complainant in this case did not sign the conditions of the consignment, hence the liability of the opposite parties limited to Rs.100/- is rejected and the opposite party cannot escape their liability to pay compensation to the complainant for non delivery of two parcels of the complainant.
12. The opposite party also contended that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint of the complainant, as it is specifically mentioned in the courier copy that in case of any dispute the same will be subject to jurisdiction of courts in Hyderabad only, this clause is against to public policy and would defeat the provisions of C.P.Act. In this case the complainant filed a complaint against opposite party who resides within the jurisdiction of this forum, hence this forum has jurisdiction as per Section .11 of C.P.Act and the contention of this opposite party untenable and it is rejected.
13 . As it was already held that the complainant failed to prove that what he was sent in the two lost parcels, but it is clear that two parcels are not delivered to the address , hence there is liability on the opposite party to pay Rs.500/- as compensation for each parcel for non delivery of said two parcels and Rs.500/- as costs.
14. In the result, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.500/- as compensation for each parcel and Rs.500/- as costs, with in 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 2nd September, 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. ANL parcel receipt dated 25-09-2007.
Ex.A2. ANL parcel receipt dated 3-10-2007.
Ex.A3. Bill issued Ashok Opticians to complainant for
RS.10,200/- as to the goods purchased there under.
Ex.A4. Bill issued Ashok Opticians to complainant for Rs.4,000/-
as to the goods purchased there under.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. CC Note 09808811.
Ex.B2. Office copy Inter Office memo dated 14-11-2007.
EX.B3. Letter dated 14-11-2007 addressed to APSRTC, Kurnool.
Ex.B4. Office copy of dated 14-11-2007 reported to the SHO, Kurnool.
Ex.B5. Consumer Council Banaganapalli letter dated 7-12-2007.
EX.B6. Office copy of reply of OP dated 15-12-2007 to Ex.B5.
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 party
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
