BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 31st day of October, 2005
CD No. 52/2005
S.Raju Jain,
S/o. Late B.P.Jain,
C/o. Reliance Creations,
Upstairs of Md. Yakub and Brothers-
building, Nehru Road,Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
A.N.L Parcel Service,
APSRTC Bas Stand,
Kurnool.
2. The Vice President,
A.N.L. Parcel Service,
D.No. 3-5-874/615, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 25.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri C. Jogarao, Advocate, Kurnool 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 Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is under section 11& 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay him a sum of Rs. 14,150/- towards cost of the consignment, Rs.10,000/- towards the estimated loss of business credibility and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had book a consignment of ready made clothes worth Rs.14,150/- through parcel service of the opposite party from Kurnool i.e through the opposite party No.1 to M/s Krishna Dresses of Gadwal under the goods consignment note No. 44501424 dated 28.8.2004 by paying the total freight charges of Rs.59/-. Though the said consignment was suppose to reach the destination with in two days, it had not reached the consignee till today. Having received a complaint over phone from the said consignee about the non delivery of the consignment. He had immediately made a written complaint dated 11.9.2004 to the opposite party No.2 though the opposite party No.1 about the non delivery of the said consignment at the destination. He after sending the written complaint to the opposite party No.2 has also wrote two letters dated 25.9.2004 and 12.10.2004 to the opposite party No.2 reminding the non delivery of the consignment. Having received the complaint and also the above said letters the opposite parties did not give any positive answer to him nor did they take any positive action in this regard. Subsequently he got issued a legal notice dated 13.1.2005 demanding the opposite parties for the refund the cost of the consignment that was misplaced by the opposite parties and also damages for the loss business credibility in the market and also towards mental agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 having received the notice has neither replied nor complied with law full demand mad by him. This conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service on their part in Performing the duty i.e in not delivering the consignment which the complainant booked.
3. In substantiation of the complaint averments, the complainant relied upon the documentary in Ex A.1 to A.7 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of it in complaint averments and on two citations which he referred though his counsel dated 30.7.2005.
4. The opposite parties in pursuance of the notice severed on them made appears through their counsel and filed objection statement and sworn affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.1 and the same was adopted by the opposite party No.2 and also filed answers by the opposite party No.1 to the interrogatories of the complainant‘s sworn affidavit, denying the truth and bonafidies of the complaint averments and the maintainability of the complaint on facts and law.
5. The opposite party No.1 admits that the complainant has booked a parcel through him from Kurnool under GC No. 44501424 dated 25.8.2004 for delivery at its branch office in Gadwal. But it is incorrect to state that he booked the consignment of ready made clothes worth Rs.14,150/-. It is an after thought by the complainant to make rightful gain by claiming the consignment worth of Rs.14,150/-. On receiving intimation from the complainant about the non delivery of the consignment, they Swung into action to enquiry the matter and took all necessary steps to make hectic search for consignment and its where abouts but in-vain. At each and every stage they have been informing the complainant that best efforts are made by them to trace out the said parcel. But he (opposite party) believes that the complainant with malafide intention has fixed up in his mind to make a dispute and litigation to make wrongful gain and the complainant got issued a legal notice make out his mind to have wrongful gain. The complainant mis-represented the Hon’ble Forum stating that he (Opposite party No.1) has not replied to the legal notice of the complaint dated 13.1.2005. They have issued reply to the legal notice on 18.1.2005. The misplacement of the said parcel is neither willful nor wanton but due to the circumstances beyond their control. He (opposite party No.1) denies that the complainant sustained loss of business creditability in the market and suffered mental agony because the consignment does not contain such valuable goods as not dis-closed at the time of booking. He (opposite party No.1) further submits that the complainant booked the parcel agreed to all the conditions mentioned over leaf of the “ FORWARDING NOTE” of the consignment of note copy mentioned in the GC note. The complainant fully aware of the same he booked the parcel. As per the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant, in the event of loss/ damage to the parcel, claim shall be limited to Rs.5/- per Kg of actual weight. Therefore as per terms and conditions at the rate of Rs. 5/- per Kg for 50 Kgs the claim comes to Rs.250/- and they (opposite parties) are ready to pay the amount of Rs.250/- to the complainant since the said parcel is not beyond their control and the same is not intentional or deliberate. Since there was the all time response from them (opposite parties) there was no deficiency in the service of them (opposite parties) on their part and the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 also reiterates the above facts and in support of its case he relied upon the documents and they are marked as Ex B.1 & B.2, filed reply to the interrogatories of the complainant dated 7.7.2005 and also placed citation through his counsel memo dated 10.10.2005 for their appreciation in the circumstances explained in its written version and sworn affidavit, where as the opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1 in this case.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the circumstances of the case in this complaint?:-
7. The Ex A.1 is a xerox copy of the letter dated 11.9.2004 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 and in token of the receipt of the same the opposite party No.2 endorsed to that effect on 27.9.2004 in which complainant complaint about the mis placement of the consignment at Gadwal and the same was informed by opposite party No.1 and requested him (Opposite party No.2) to settle the claim immediately. The Ex A.2 is the carbon copy of the letter dated 25.9.2004 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 in token of the receipt of the same the said opposite party No.2 endorsed to that effect on 27.9.2004 in which the complainant remained the same matter of Ex A.1 and Ex A.2. The Ex A.3 is the carbon copy of letter dated 12.10.2004 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 in which the complainant again third time remained the opposite party No.2 about the misplacement of the goods which he booked through opposite party No.1 to Gadwal, the value of the same is Rs.14,150/- and requested to take action in the said matter, otherwise he shall proceed legally. The Ex A.4 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel on 13 1.2005 to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 under Registered post acknowledgement due wherein he averred the facts of the complaint and requested to settle the matter within one week from the date of receipt of the said notice. The Ex A.5 is the postal acknowledgment of opposite party No.1 of Ex A.4 on 15.1.2005. The Ex A.6 is the xerox copy of the goods consignment note with the list of ready made dress articles, in token of the receipt of the same the opposite party No.2 endorsed on 27.9.2004. The same Ex A.6 was replaced with the original of said document by a memo on 8.9.2005 by the complainant’s counsel and the same was marked as Ex A.7. In this original Ex A.7 i.e the Goods Consignment note ( No 4401424) containing the address of consignor and consignee, date of booking as 28.8.2004, the place of booking and destination as Kurnool and Gadwal respectively with one P/B package charge weight 50 Kgs, the “TO PAY “ amount mentioned as Rs.59/-, the sad affair of the said GC note was that it could not contain the signature of the consignor or his agent and the signature of the agent in charge who booked consignment i.e opposite party No.1 who ought to have obtained the signature of the consignor in the G.C note to make his liable for the said terms and conditions, where as the Ex B.1 filed by the opposite party No.1 without said terms and conditions and in token of the said goods booked by the consignor as consignee he (opposite party No.1) would have been signed on the said G.C note, this careless attitude and deliberate negligence is clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. With this facts of the document and the terms and conditions mentioned over leaf, of Ex A.7 the consignor and the consignee could not avail any lawful and cogent inference what so ever as it was not signed by the both said parties as mentioned above. Thus the Ex A.1,A.2 and Ex A.4 to Ex A.6 clearly envisages the proof of notices exchanged with the opposite parties and the cogent material of the complainant in reference to the said facts of this case. The complainant sworn affidavit also reiterates all the above facts and documents.
8. The complainant in support of its case relied on the judgment of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore I (2005) CPJ 256 wherein the said Hon’ble Commission held at para 3 and 4 that the non delivery of two cartons concerned the opposite party having undertaken to delivery to the consignee and being not delivered, the opposite party is liable to pay the value of this two cartons. In another judgment of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Raipur wherein the said Hon’ble Commission upheld the order of District Forum in which the booked consignment not delivered as per directions, the said non delivery of goods it self a presumption proof of negligence on the part of carrier even though the truck carrying the consignment caught fire on way, which was an “Act of God”. In this complainant not obliged to prone the same i.e FIRE not “Act of God”. The opposite party could not be absolved from liability, hence complainant entitle to compensation for loss of consignment.
9. The opposite party No.1 relied on the documentary proof and they are marked as Ex B.1 and Ex B.2, filed replies to the interrogatories of the complainant dated 7.7.2005 and filed citation for their appreciation in the circumstances explained in its written version and sworn affidavit. The Ex B.1 is nothing but office copy of GC note without terms and conditions. The original copy of the GC note was also filed by the complainant which was marked as Ex A.7. The Ex B.2 is the reply notice dated 18.1.2005 of the opposite parties to the counsel of the complainant for his legal notice dated 13.1.2005 ( Ex A.4) wherein he acknowledged the said notice and informed that about non delivery of the said consignment which the complainant booked under GC No. 44501424 dated 28.8.2004 from Kurnool to Gadwal, the said matter being pursued with the branches concern and revert back to the complainant shortly same after they here from the said branches and requested to bear the delay. But no cogent material has been filed by the opposite arties about receipt of the said alleged reply notice dt18.1.2005 either by the complainant or his counsel. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Gujarath at Ahmedabad, 2000 I (3) CPR 522, wherein it was observed that where complainant failed to disclose contents of postal article sent by speed post and did not care to take insurance cover if article was valuable, he could not be compensated for the loss where article was demand draft of big amount. This case concerned to the postal department (Central Government) wherein the present case of the complainant was entirely deferent from the said case where as here, the opposite parties concerned are of the private origination.
10. As seen from the above cogent material available in Ex A.1 to A.7, the citation referred by the complainant in support of his case and other material available on the record of this case of the complainant, the contents of the opposite party No.1 and No2. in support their case is remaining without any justifiable excuse, the said conduct of the opposite party No.1 and No.2 is certainly amounting to failure on their part in not delivering the consignment booked by the complainant to the concern party till date as per the GC note (Ex A.7/Ex B.1) or in not paying its value i.e Rs. 14,150/- and thereby amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the said claim of Rs. 14,150/- as the bonafidies of the complainant’s claim or not otherwise disturbed.
11. In the result, in sum of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the value of the goods which he booked amounting to Rs. 14,150/- and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this case and the opposite parties are granted one month time for the compliance of this Order. In default, the opposite parties shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of the said order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 31st day of October, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant :-
Ex A.1 Xerox copy of the letter dated 11.9.2004 addressed by the complainant
to the OP No.2.
Ex A.2 The carbon copy of the letter dt 25.9.2004 addressed by the
complainant to the OP No.2.
Ex A.3 The carbon copy of the letter dt 12.10.04 addressed by the complainant
to the OP NO.2
Ex A.4Legal notice dated 13.1.2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to
opposite party No.1&2.
Ex A.5 Postal acknowledgment of opposite party No.1.
Ex A.6 Xerox copy of the goods consignment note with the list of ready made
articles.
Ex A.7 Original goods consignment No. 44501424 containing the address of
consignor’s and consignee’s date of booking as 28.8.2004.
List of Exhibits Marked for opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Original goods consignment note of ANL Parcel service, No. 44501424, dt 28.8.2004.
Ex B.2 Reply legal notice dated 18.1.2005 .
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Copy to :
1. Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri C.Jogaro, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
