BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 21st day of September, 2005
CD No. 55/2005
P.Sivasankar,
S/o. Venkateswarlu,
R/o. H.No. 51/15-A-17,
Baba Brundavan Nagar,
Bellary Road, Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
Vijayanand Road Lines Ltd,
Bellary Road,
Kurnool.
2. The Proprietor,
Vijayanand Road Lines Ltd,
Giriraj N X Circuit House Road,
Hublee (T), Darwad (Dist),
Karnataka. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 16.09.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri K. Uma Hanumantha Rao, Advocate, for complainant and Sri G. Nagaremesh Goud, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to return the consignments booked articles, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony 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 on 2.12.2003 booked three consignments with opposite party No.1, to deliver one wooden dining table set and one wooden cot to G.Ramu of Guntur, (2) two wooden double cots to G.Suresh of Gudur, Nellore Dist and (3) one wooden single cot to K.Srinivasulu, Secunderabad, all worth Rs.20,000/- and obtained three receipts bearing No.s 66002323, 66002324, 66002325 respectively, dt 2.12.2003 and paid prescribed amount, but the said booked articles were not delivered to the said destinations. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to know the reasons for not delivering the said articles and opposite party No.1 did not gave suitably reply and dragged the matter till the complainant got issued legal notice dt 28.12.2004, which was not suitablely replied by opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 replied with baseless allegations stating that the consignments were seized by Forest Check Post authorities at Atmakur near Nellore and that they paid penalty. But the complainant submits that the opposite parties ought to have informed the complainant and get proper and concerned bills to release the said consignments from the Check Post Authorities. The opposite parties have taken the said plea after the complainant got issued legal notice. Hence, the non delivery of the articles to the booked destinations is amounting to deficiency of service.
3. The complainant in support of its case relied on the following documents Viz (1)
Receipt issued by opposite parties to the complainant, dt 2.12.2003 booked to Guntur for Rs.248/- (2) Receipt issued by opposite parties to the complainant, dt 2.12.2003 booked to Gudur for Rs,. 162/- (3) Receipt issued by opposite parties to the complainant, dt 2.12.2003 booked to Secundrabad for Rs.180/- (4) office copy of legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 28.12.2004 (5) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex A.4 by opposite party No.2 (6) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex A.4 by opposite party No.1 and (7) Reply to Ex A.4 dated 20.1.2005 by Vijayanand Roadlines Ltd, R.B Gadagkar, legal advisor /VRL- Group to the complainant’s counsel, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties 1 and 2.
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, the opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties submits that the complaint of complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. But admits the complainant booked certain packed articles on 2.12.2003 to be delivered to different persons at Guntur, Gudur and Secunderabad, saying that the articles are used ones. The said articles were not delivered to the said destinations, as the Forest Check Post, Atmakur near Nellore seized the said articles of the complainant for sending the prohibited forest products without permit, invoice or with any valid documents and levied penalty, as there was no alternative the opposite parties paid the penalty and released the seized articles in the interest of the complainant, believing that the complainant would reimburse the penalty paid. But the complainant did not agree to reimburse the penalty and got issued a legal notice for which fitting reply was given. As per the condition No.3 of terms and conditions, it is the consignor who shall be responsible for any delay, detention or forfeiture of goods, if said goods are detained by Govt. employees; expenses will be borne by consignor. The complainant instead of reimbursing the penalty, filed this false and frivolous complaint against opposite parties, hence the opposite parties are entitled to compensation and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite parties in support to their case did not file any valid documents to be marked, the opposite party No.2 filed his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version and suitablely replied to the interrogatories filed by the complainant.
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 three consignments to be delivered at Gudur, Guntur and Secundrabad vide Ex A.1, A.2 and A.3, which were not delivered to the said destinations. On approach, the opposite parties pleaded that the said articles were seized by Forest Check Post authorities, Atmakur near Nellore as the said packed articles are new teak wood un assembled furniture and for sending prohibited Forest products without valid permit and levied penalty and the opposite parties paid the said penalty and sought reimbursement of said penalty amount from the complainant to deliver the said articles. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite parties and there is no cogent relevant material placed on record to believe the version of the opposite parties. There is no receipt filed by the opposite parties as to believe that the said seized articles are of complainant only. There is nothing on record to show that the forest authorities has levied penalty on complainant’s booked articles only and absolutely there is no supporting material supporting the version of the opposite parties, hence it is very hard to believe that the complainant’s articles are seized by Forest authorities and the opposite parties paid penalty, hence, the said statement of opposite parties on this aspect not only remains highly inconsistence and also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of the opposite parties in that regard.
9. The opposite parties counsel strongly argued that the complainant’s booked articles are seized, by forest authorities, if that is taken into consideration, when the said articles are seized, the opposite parties should have atleast informed the complainant about the seizure, and it is for the complainant to look after for the release of said seized goods and not for the opposite parties to pay penalty and release the seized goods, as the said goods are of complainant. The burden lies on the complainant to release the said goods from the forest authorities and it is not for the opposite parties to pay penalty to the said goods of the complainant. Therefore, from the above there appears high inconsistence as to the bonafidies of the opposite parties and further there appears no reason as why the opposite parties paid penalty amount to the forest authorities to the goods of the complainant and further there is no supporting material placed by the opposite parties to substantiate the said contention. Hence, there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite parties side towards the complainant for not delivering the booked articles to its destination and now cannot take shelter under seizure of goods by forest authorities.
10. The Ex A.4 is the legal notice of the complainant addressed to opposite parties 1 and 2 the same grievance such as non delivery of booked articles to its destinations inspite of repeated requests. The Ex A.5 and A.6 while envisages the acknowledgement of Ex A.4 by opposite party No.1 and 2. The Ex A.7 is the reply of opposite party No.2 denying all the material averments of Ex A.4 notice of the complainant as false and alleging seizure of goods by Forest Check Post authorities at Atmakur and the opposite parties released the goods by paying penalty of Rs.12,000/- in the interest of complainant.
11. The opposite parties except alleging defaultive and non cooperative conduct of complainant in not reimbursing the penal paid by them but did not file any supporting documents to substantiate their bonafidies and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material.
12. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not delivering the booked articles to its destinations and taking shelter under seizure of goods by forest authorities and payment of penalty by opposite parties cannot be accepted and the opposite parties are liable to return the said booked articles to the complainant.
13. Therefore, is the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to return to the complainant three articles booked on 2.12.2003 with opposite parties for transport to Gudur, Guntur and Secundrabad, along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us pronounced in the open Court this the 21st day of September, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Receipt issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant dt 2.12.2003
booked to Guntur for Rs.248/-.
Ex A.2 Receipt issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant dt 2.12.2003
Booked to Gudur for Rs.162/-.
Ex A.3 Receipt issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant dt 2.12.2003
Booked to Secundrabad for Rs.180/-.
Ex A.4 Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite
party No.1 and 2 dated 28.12.2004.
Ex A.5 Postal Acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex A.4 by opposite party
No. 2.
Ex A.6 Postal Acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex A.4 by opposite party
No.1.
Ex A.7 Reply to Ex A.4 dated 20.1.2005.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
- Sri K.Uma Hanumantha Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri G. Nagaremesh Goud, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
