Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/5/2015

K.V. Krishna Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, ANL Parcel Services - Opp.Party(s)

Y. Srinivasa Swamy

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                 Date of filing:   29.01.2015

                                                                   Date of Order:  09.10.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                                                       PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                          Friday, the 9^th day of October, 2015

 

 

C.C.No.5 /2015

Between:-

 

K.V. Krishna Rao,

Head of Kolla Innovatives Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,

D.No.46-7-8, Radhika Towers, Rajahmundry.                       …        Complainant

 

                        And

 

The Manager, ANL Parcel Service,

Rajahmundry.                                                                         …        Opposite party

 

 

 

            This case coming on 01.10.2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Y. Srinivasa Swamy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri P.L.N. Prasad, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite party to return the Laptop in question in specie in its original condition or value thereon of Rs.32,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till date of payment; award Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony and damages faced by the complainant on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and award Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows:-  It is submitted that the complainant is the regular customer of the opposite party and he regularly utilizes the services of the opposite party and he transport the laptops and computers and other material from his office to their head office at Visakhapatnam.  He is regular course, he has sent the Lenova Laptop worth Rs.32,000/- through the opposite party to head office at Visakhapatnam addressed to Kolla Innovative Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam.  But the parcel sent by the complainant was not received at Visakhapatnam office.  Immediately, the complainant sent a reminder dt.11.3.2013 to the opposite party about non-delivery of the consignment, but the opposite party did  not take any steps.  On 18.7.2014, the complainant got issued a legal notice and the opposite party received the same and gave reply on 26.7.2014 admitting the non-reaching of consignment. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant.  This opposite party submits that the complaint is barred by limitation as envisaged under Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions any dispute arising under the contract that would be subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction only. As such, the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the complainant. This opposite party submits that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(d) of C.P. Act  and the complaint filed by the complainant does not comes under the purview of Consumer dispute envisaged in section 2(e) of C.P. Act. It is specifically admitted in his complaint that he is doing in computer business under the name and style of Kolla Innovatives Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Rajahmundry. Therefore, the complaint is to be didmissed in limini.  This opposite party submits that the complainant had booked a parcel consignment through the opposite party for which he was given receipt. The consignment dispatched from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam was not reached to the destination due to circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. However, the opposite party had tried its level best to trace out the same but in vain.  The non delivery of the above is neither willful nor wanton, but due to the circumstances explained as above. The opposite party further submits that the alleged parcel was misplaced in transit due to mishandling of the driver of the RTC and therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such, the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of compensation or alleged claim of compensation to the complainant. The opposite party denies that the value of the parcel is Rs.32,000/- and that the said parcel contained Lenova Laptop as mentioned in the complaint and contended that the said value was exaggerated only to file the present complaint and it is against the declared value in the consignment note. The opposite party further submits without prejudice its contentions that the opposite party is liable only for Rs.100/- as per the conditions made in the consignment note. The complainant has not disclosed the contents of the consignment at the time of booking. But informed that it is one C/B computer items, accordingly the opposite party recorded in the goods consignment note. The complainant has not submitted any invoice/bill to the opposite party at the time of booking, but informed that the cost of the consignment is Rs.2,000/-, accordingly the opposite party recorded the same in the Goods consignment note. There is a space for mentioning value of the consignment in the Goods consignment note and if the party is not submitted any invoice or bill at the time of booking the value column of the GC note was mentioned Rs.2,000/- as informed by the complainant. If the complainant or his representative had signed on the courier consignment note agreeing that the company liability is up to Rs.100/- in the event of loss, damage or non delivery of the courier consignment. The opposite party is not responsible for consequential losses against the loss of the consignment in transit due to the circumstances beyond its control. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A5 have been marked. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and there is no documents filed by them.

5.         Heard both sides.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

         

         

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  As per the available record, the complainant herein sent a parcel to their head office at Visakhapatnam through the opposite party ANL Parcel Service, Rajahmundry on 27.2.2013 vide Receipt No.16637059 and collected an amount of Rs.96/- towards transport charges from the complainant vide Ex.A2 receipt.  The complainant further stated that as the parcel containing one piece of Lenova Laptop worth about Rs.32,000/- as per Ex.A1 invoice, was not received by their head office, immediately, sent a reminder under reference No.KIIT-ANLPS/CL/03-13 dt.11.3.2013 vide Ex.A3 and informed that the consignment was not delivered, but the opposite party neither delivered the said consignment at the destination nor replied to the complainant’s reminder. On that, the complainant issued legal notice dt.18.7.2014 vide Ex.A4 demanding for return of the Laptop contained in the non-delivered parcel or to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for non-delivery of the laptop.  The opposite party issued reply dt.26.7.2014 vide Ex.A5 admitted non-delivery of consignment at the destination, but denied his liability.   

              The opposite party contended that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act and further contended that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (d) of C.P. Act, as the complainant is doing computer business. We carefully observed that the complaint is within the limitation period of two years as per C.P. Act and the transaction by the complainant in the present case does not amount to commercial nature, as the complainant utilized the services of the opposite party parcel office to send Laptop to their head office at Visakhapatnam on payment of Rs.96/- towards transportation charges. The further contention of the opposite party is that the cost of the Laptop contained in the parcel was exaggerated as Rs.32,000/- by the complainant, whereas the value was mentioned as Rs.2,000/- only in the receipt issued by the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.100/- only as per the terms and conditions of the receipt.

            The opposite party though denied their liability admitted that the said parcel in dispute was misplaced in transit due to mishandling by the driver of the RTC bus, through which it was sent. Further, the complainant mentioned the parcel as C/B computer item vide Ex.A2 and the opposite party is not aware of the content of the consignment as it was packed and sealed condition by the complainant. But, we are in the considered opinion that the opposite party should have firsthand knowledge about the consignment transported by them from one place to another and further, they should know the exact value of the item contained in the parcels and they are not supposed to transmit the goods whatever it is, without bills and insurance as per the law. Hence, the opposite party is liable for deficiency in service on his part in non-deliver of the consignment containing Laptop of the complainant though the same was mishandled by someone else. 

            It is further observed that the complainant’s signature was not there on the receipt issued by the opposite party and so, the terms and conditions contained overleaf of the receipt will not bind upon the complainant. Further, it is a well known fact that now a days, a Laptop costs about more than Rs.30,000/- as per market sources, so, under the facts and circumstances, the claim of the complainant that his Lenova Laptop costed Rs.32,000/- is reasonable in our opinion.        

 

            With the above said discussion, we are in the considered opinion, the non-delivery of the consignment booked by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ANL Parcel Service and so, the opposite party is liable to return the misplaced Lenova Laptop or in the alternative to pay the cost of Lenova Laptop amounting to Rs.32,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The complainant is not entitled for other reliefs asked for in the complaint except the costs of this complaint.

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to return the misplaced Lenova Laptop or in the alternative to pay the cost of Lenova Laptop amounting to Rs.32,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of demand in the legal notice i.e. 18.07.2014 till realization to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant. Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order.   

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the           

9^th day of October, 2015.

    

                 Sd/-xx                                                                                               Sd/-xx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1    dt/27.2.2013    Invoice bearing No.1038 concerning the Laptop sent through the

  opposite party to his Visakhapatnam office.

Ex.A2    dt/27.2.2013    Receipt issued by the opposite party for booking of consignment of

  complainant.

Ex.A3    dt/11.3.2013    O/c of reminder sent to the opposite party by the complainant.

Ex.A4    dt/18.7.2014    O/c of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite

  party.

Ex.A5    dt/26.7.2014    Reply notice got issued by the opposite party.

 

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:-      - Nil -

 

 

                    Sd/-xx                                                                                      Sd/-xx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)