STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 1085 OF 2013
AGAINST
CC No. 521 OF 2009, DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between :
- The Branch Manager,
M.M. Enterprises ( On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd)
Shop No. 11, GBS Enclave, A-1 Moti Valley,
Beside SBI, Trimulgherrry, Secunderabad.
- Managing Director,
On-Dot, Couriers and Cargo Ltd
8/42, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area
New Delhi – 110 015 .. Appellants/opposite parties
And
The Joint Director,
ECHS Regional Centre, Hyderabad
C/o 404, Air Force Station,
Begumpet, Bowenpally Post
Secunderabad – 11 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. R. Pavan Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. Suryanarayana
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Nineth Day of November
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2013 made in CC 521 of 2009 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM-III, Hyderabad and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he dispatched 273 Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme Cards pertaining to Station Headquarters, Belgaum and Maratha Light Infantry Records, Belgaum on 05.03.2008 and 05.04.2008 through first opposite party Courier vide consignment receipt No.AWB No.901516110 dated 11.3.2008 and No.AWB No.901581966, dated 10.04.2008. Later, he was informed from the destinations that the said consignments were not reached them. He wrote letters on 08.11.2008 to OP.2 and to OP.1 on 08.12.2008, for which, OP.1 through letter dated 22.12.2008 requested him to give 10 more working days to trace out the same, however, thereafter there was no response and hence it amounts to deficiency in service. He incurred an amount of Rs.24,570/- @ Rs.90/- per card towards manufacture of each card and Rs.5,430/- towards postage and Miscellaneous charges. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards the expenses incurred, Rs.90,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4) The opposite parties opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that they have dispatched the consignment on 11.3.2008 and 10.04.2008 and the complainant never stated that the parcel contained 273 Contributory Health Scheme Cards, weight of the packet is not mentioned and declared value of the parcel is also not mentioned. If the value of the parcel exceeds Rs.10,000/-, then, it must be insured that was not done by the complainant. As per column no. 3 of the consignment, all the claims of the consignment must be forwarded to the company in writing within 30 days but the complainant has sent his complaint 8 months after the alleged date of dispatch. The online data and manual data are retained only fir three months and thereafter, they will be destroyed. Hence there is no cause of action and the complaint is not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-10 and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments. Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs within four weeks, failing which, liable to pay interest @ 9% from 07.10.2013 till realization.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) None appeared on 06.11.2017, though, the matter is posted as last chance for filing the written arguments, the appellant did not choose to file the same and the written arguments of the respondent already on record. Hence the matter is reserved for orders.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that one consignment was booked vide Ex.A2 on 11.03.2008 and another consignment was vide Ex.A4 on 10.04.2008 to send the same to the station Headquarters, Belgaum and Maratha Light Infantry Records, Belgaum respectively. The contention of the respondent/complainant is that he sent 222 ECHS Smart Card with list of ESM vide Ex.A-1 and 51 ECH Smart cards vide Ex.A-4 and they did not reach the destinations and the same was brought to the notice of the appellants/opposite party but there was no action. On the other hand, the appellants/opposite parties rebutting the same argued that the respondent/complainant never stated that the parcel contained 273 Contributory Health Scheme Cards, weight of the packet is not mentioned and declared value of the parcel is also not mentioned. If the value of the parcel exceeds Rs.10,000/-, then, it must be insured and that was not done by the respondent/complainant. As per column no. 3 of the consignment, all the claims of the consignment must be forwarded to the company in writing within 30 days but the respondent/complainant has sent his complaint 8 months after the alleged date of dispatch. The online data and manual data are retained only for three months and thereafter, they will be destroyed. We have perused Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-4 consignment receipts which disclose that the contents of the booking as ‘ cards’ and the weight of the cards and the booking charges of the consignment were not mentioned. Ex.A9 and A10 bills show that the respondent/complainant printed the Health Cards at Core Technologies Ltd, Gurgaon, Haryana. When a consignment was booked to send the same to the destinations, it is the duty of the appellants/opposite parties to mention the details of the consignment as alleged above and that was not done by them. Further, the respondent/complainant is the Government officer and he sent the same for the welfare of the ex- Government employees and he need not say any lie and he already proved that the said cards were manufactured at the address given in Ex.A9 and A10. Further, the respondent/complainant vehemently argued that there was no response from second appellant/second opposite party to his letter vide Ex.A5 dated 08.11.2008, wherein, he categorically stated that the consignment booked under Ex.A2 and A4 receipts were not delivered at the destinations and the OP.1 Branch Manager has shown lackadaisical attitude and did not attend any tele calls and investigate into the matter and take disciplinary action against him. Further, though the first appellant/first opposite party reacted vide Ex.A7 letter dated 22.12.2008, to the complaint of the respondent/complainant vide Ex.A6 dated 08.12.2008 requesting 10 days time to sort out the issue, but, thereafter, no action was taken. The argument of the appellants/ Opposite parties that the claim of the consignment has to be forwarded within 30 days cannot be accepted since the respondent/complainant vide Ex.A5 letter to the second appellant/opposite party complained against the first appellant/first opposite party that he did not attend telecalls and take disciplinary action against him. Further, whether it was brought to their notice or not, when a consignment was booked, it is their duty to see that it reached the destination within the time and they have to be checked whether it reached the destination or not and should take immediate necessary action but they failed to do so and hence the contention of the appellants that the complaint was issued after a long gap is ridiculous and it amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum, on the basis of the facts and exhibits, believing that the respondent/complainant sent the said cards as mentioned are true and relying on the decision of the State Consumer Commission, Gujarat in between Consumer Research Society Vs. Skvpak Courier Private Limited and others reported in ( 1991) CPR 462, attributing deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties, allowed the claim in part. We do not find any infirmity in the said order.
11). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties and that there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the District Forum. There are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
12). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 06.09.2013 in CC 521 of 2009 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 29.11.2017.
