CIRCUIT BENCH AT TIRUPATHI

F.A.  1482/2006 against C.C. 2/2005, Dist. Forum, Chittoor

Between:

K. Sitharam

S/o. K. Subbarao

Age: 50 years, Art Master

D.No. 28-390/2, Ramnagar Colony

Chittoor-517 001

Chittoor District.                              ***                                   Appellant/

Complainant

                                                          A N D

1. The Branch Manager

U-Call Courier Service

Shop. No. 9,

Municipal Complex 

(Upstairs) P.H. Road

Chittoor-517 001.

2. The Branch Manager

U-Call Courier Service

(On-Dot Courier Service)

D.No. 13-6-616/1

P.K. Layout, Tirupathi.

3. The Manager

U-Call Courier Service

Udayasri Courier & Logistics Ltd.

9/3, RT, Street No. 5

Opp. Airport Road,

Prakashnagar, Begumpet

Hyderabad-500 016.

4. The Hyderabad Art Society Gallery

Exhibition Grounds,

Nampally, Hyderabad

Rep. by its Secretary.                                   ***                         Respondents/

O.Ps.

Counsel for the Appellant                           :         Mr. M. Haribabu

Counsel for the Respondent                        :         R2 served.

Rest by paper                                    Publication

                    HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT 

&

                                            SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH   DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE

CORAM:     

                   Oral Order ( per Smt M.Shreesha, Member)

*****

          Aggrieved by the order in C.C. No. 2/2005   on the file of District Forum, Chittoor,   the complainant    preferred this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant  is  working as Art Teacher for the past  20 years.  He has seen an advertisement  issued by Hyderabad Art  Society Gallery, Hyderabad conducting State Level Art Competition at Hyderabad in which participants were  requested to send their applications along with  entry fee of Rs. 150/- by way of demand draft and the proposed paintings were to be kept in the competition.   Intending to participate in the said competition the complainant sent  two paintings through opposite parties 1 to 3.  Both the paintings were  2’ x 3’  size and he paid Rs. 100/- towards service charges on the assurance given by  opposite party No. 1 about the safe delivery of the paintings to  Hyderabad Art Society.   The complainant submits that on 17.12.2002 he had booked the paintings to be sent by courier  since the last date for the paintings to reach the  Art Society  was 30.12.2002.   The complainant came to know about non-delivery of the paintings when he enquired about the result of the competition with the Art Society in the month of  February, 2003.   Since the paintings were never received by the organizers they were not considered for competition.   When the complainant requested for proof of delivery  opposite party No. 1  stated  that proof of delivery (POD)  had to be collected within 10 days from the date of delivery,  and it cannot be stored for record purpose.   Thereafter complainant approached  opposite party No. 2   on  8.3.2003  who informed that the paintings were  delivered to one Mr.  J. Gopi  on  20.12.2002  and handed over a copy of delivery run sheet to the complainant maintained  by their Hyderabad Office  and a copy of letter endorsing  that  the paintings  were  delivered  to  one  Mr.  J. Gopi.  

The complainant submits that  he had booked the paintings to be delivered to the Secretary, Hyderabad Art Society  and not to Mr. Gopi.   The complainant also got issued a legal notice but  opposite parties 1 to 3 did not reply. Apart from missing an opportunity in participating  in the painting competition, the complainant has lost valuable paintings and therefore opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of valuable paintings with interest @ 12%  from the date of  complaint  together with costs.

          Opposite Party  No. 3 filed counter stating that the persons who were working in courier  were no longer working with them now and that alleged paintings  in the form of big boards  which were intended to be sent to the competition were received in a packed condition  and the  opposite parties had no occasion to verify, and that at the time of booking the complainant did not give any declaration  in writing to that effect as required under clause 15 of the terms and conditions  of  way bill.   The parcel was delivered to one Mr. J. Gopi as per the delivery run sheet, who was said to be in-charge  and that his signature was also obtained from him, and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. 

          Opposite Party No. 2 filed a memo adopting the counter of Opposite Party No. 3.

          Based on the affidavit evidence  and  Exs. A1 to A12 and Ex. B1  and also oral  deliberations,   the Dist. Forum dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal.   

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Dist. Forum erred in observing that the articles in question were delivered to the addressee.  The burden lies on the opposite parties 1 to 3 to prove that the consignment was delivered to the right person.    There is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 in not delivering the consignment to the addressee.   Therefore he prayed that the appeal be allowed as prayed for.

The facts not in dispute are that the complainant is  an Art Teacher  who booked a parcel through  opposite parties 1 to 3  on 17.12.2002  to be delivered to  Hyderabad Art Society.  It is the case of the complainant that those paintings which were supposed to be delivered to the organizers  at  Hyderabad Art Society were not delivered  and therefore he lost an opportunity to participate in the competition and also lost his valuable paintings.   It is the case of the opposite parties  1 to 3 that this parcel was delivered to one Mr. J. Gopi and  therefore there is no deficiency in service  on their behalf.   They relied on Delivery Run Sheet  Ex. A10.     On perusal of Ex. A10  at S.No. 5  we observe that it is signed by one  Mr. J. Gopi as against  Hyderabad Art Society but there is no stamp of Hyderabad Art Society nor it is stated as to who Mr. Gopi is and in what capacity  he has accepted this parcel.   A perusal of Ex. A2 shows that  Way Bill No. 7656178122 was booked by the complainant  to be delivered to Hyderabad Art Gallery, Nampally, Hyderabad and that this clearly shows that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not taken proper precautionary care  in delivering the parcel  to the right person.  We observe from the prospectus  of  68^th All India Art Exhibition that the awards for paintings, sculptures, Graphics and  Drawings are as under:

AWARDS:

1.     Hyderabad Art Society Gold Medal with cash prize of Rs. 5,000/-

2.     Surabhi Education Soceity Gold Medal with cash prize of Rs. 5,000/-

in Memory of  Late P.V. Narasimha Rao former Prime Minister of India.

3.     Eight cash awards of Rs. 5,000/-

4.     P. Venkateswara Raju Award of Rs. 5,000/-.

On perusal of record, we note that both the paintings were not delivered for which a minimum of Rs. 5,000/- per painting i.e., Rs. 10,000/- could be awarded and also Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the loss of valuable paintings as well as loss of opportunity to participate in the art exhibition. We also award  costs of Rs. 3,000/-.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part directing  Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of paintings and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs. 3,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.  The complaint against opposite party No. 4 is dismissed without costs.

                   PRESIDENT                                      LADY  MEMBER                                                                     

    Dt.  20. 01. 2009