Date of filing: 25.02.2012
Date of disposal: 30.01.2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 30th day of January, 2013
C.C.No.09 /2012
Between:
K.Sambaiah S/o Krishna Murthy Achari,
Proprietor M/s M2S Products, B17,
Industrial Estate,
Bellary Road,
Anantapur. … Complainant
Vs.
1. Kesineni Cargo Carriers Private Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
Surya Nagar,
Anantapur.
2. Kesinei Cargo Carriers Private Limited,
Auto Nagar,
Vijayawada … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Vijayakumar and D.P.Vijayakumar, Advocates for the complainant and Sri K.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the 1st Opposite Party and 2nd Opposite Party is called absent and set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to deliver the cartoon boxes booked by Shri Kumaran Graphic Machinery Private Limited, Bangalore or to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - One Shri Kumaran Graphic Machinery Private Limited, Bangalore booked two cartoon boxes containing No.5 spacer 200 Nos. No.8 spacer 400 Nos., No.6 spacer 20 Nos. Disc Rod Collar 20 Nos. and Black colour ink 20 liters all worth about Rs.22,000/- at the office of opposite partyBangalore vide L.R.No.BLRT No.11004412 on 05.03.2011. The complainant submits that as per the terms and also in usual course, the consignment shall be delivered at Anantapur to the complainant on the next day of booking i.e. on 06.03.2011, but in spite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the opposite party has not delivered the consignment to the complainant even after one month. Further the staff of the opposite party at Anantapur has given evasive answers and did not evince any interest to trace the consignment and deliver the same. Due to the delay in delivery of the consignment the complainant could not run his industry and sustained huge loss. The complainant further submits that the consignment has not been delivered even after issuing the notices on 18.01.2012 and 12.03.2012 requesting him to deliver the cartoon boxes within 24 hours on receipt of the notice and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Though the said notices were served to the opposite parties there was no reply from the opposite parties.
3. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties to deliver the two cartoon boxes booked by Shri Kumaran Graphic machinery Private Limited, Bangalore or to pay the price of the goods Rs.22,000/- and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
4. Counter filed on behalf of the 1st Opposite Party stating that the allegation made by the complainant that one Shri Kumaran Graphic machinery Private Limited,Bangalore booked two cartoon boxes containing No.5 spacer 200 Nos. No.8 spacer 400 Nos., No.6 spacer 20 Nos. Disc Rod Collar 20 Nos. and Black colour ink 20 liters all worth about Rs.22,000/- at the office of 1st opposite party Bangalore vide BLRT No.11004412 on 05.03.2011 to be delivered to the complainant which is payable by the consignee at the time of delivery may be true and correct. The 1st Opposite Party submits that the allegation made in the complaint that as per the terms and also in usual course the consignment shall be delivered at Anantapur to the complainant the next day of booking i.e., on 06.03.2011 may be true. The further allegation made in the complaint that inspite of repeated demands the opposite party has not delivered the consignment to the complainant even after one month the same is created for the purpose of filing this unjust complaint. Further allegation made in the complaint that the staff of the 1st Opposite Party at Anantapur have given evasive answers and are not showing any interest to trace the consignment and deliver the same to the complainant is not at all true and correct. The further allegation made in the complaint that due to the delay in delivery of the consignment the complainant could not run his industry and sustain huge loss is also a blatant lie and the same is created for the purpose of filing this complaint.
5. The 1st Opposite Party submits that the complainant never approached their office with a request to deliver the consignment. The consignment is ready for delivery to the complainant but the complainant did not approach their office and requested for the delivery of the consignment at any point of time. The 1st Opposite Party further submits that it is true that the complainant got issued a notice to the opposite party and the opposite party gave reply notice to the complainant. But the complainant suppressing all the facts has filed this complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
6. The 2nd opposite party is called absent and set-exparte.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2?
ii) To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties, the opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
9. Heard both sides
10. POINT NO 1:- It is an admitted fact that Shri Kumaran Graphic machinery Private Limited, Bangalore booked two cartoon boxes containing No.5 spacer 200 Nos. No.8 spacer 400 Nos., No.6 spacer 20 Nos. Disc Rod Collar 20 Nos. and Black colour ink 20 liters all worth about Rs.22,000/- at the office of 1st opposite partyBangalore vide BLRT No.11004412 on 05.03.2011 which is to be delivered to the complainant on payment of Rs.300/- towards freight charges.
11. In normal procedure the consignment is to be delivered on the next day of booking i.e., 06.03.2011 but, inspite of the repeated demands made by the complainant for delivery of the consignment, the 1st Opposite Party did not deliver the same to the complainant even after one month. Further the staff of the 1stOpposite Party have given evasive answers and not show any interest to trace the consignment and deliver the same to the complainant. Due to non delivery of the consignment the complainant could not run his industry and sustained huge loss is the argument of the counsel for the complainant.
12. Subsequently the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 18.01.2012 and 12.03.2012 requesting him to deliver the cartoon boxes with 24 hours of the receipt of the notice and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and the said notice was served to the opposite parties, but there was no reply by the opposite parties or delivery of the cartoon boxes till now.
13. The argument made by the counsel for the Opposite Parties is that the complainant never approached the 1st opposite party for taking delivery of the two cartoon boxes which were booked in his name. The complainant with malafide intention has filed this complainant against the opposite parties. And further stated that the material is ready for delivery and the same was informed to the complainant but the complainant himself did not show any interest to take delivery of the said goods. Hence there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
14. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents it is clear that the goods booked by Shri Kumaran Graphic machinery Private Limited, Bangalore is lying at the office of 1st opposite party even now the document Ex.A3 and A6 which are legal notices issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party shows that the 1st opposite party has not delivered the goods. But the 1st opposite party has not filed any evidence to show that he sent reply notices as argued in order to substantiate his version. In normal practice the goods is to be delivered to the consignee as soon as they are received and if the consignee is not interested in taking delivery of the goods it is the duty of the transport to issue a notice to the consignee and consignor and act as per the directions of the consignor. But whereas in the instant case there is no proof that the opposite part has given notice either to the consignee or the consignor. Hence, the version of the opposite party is untenable and cannot be taken into consideration. But whereas the complainant has given notices to the opposite parties to deliver the goods and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which were served to them. For that also there is no reply by the 1st opposite party which shows their negligence. For the reasons best known to them the non-delivery of the parcel, which is lying in the premises of 1st opposite party since 06-03-2011 is pure negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party.
15. Further the non-delivery of the goods by the 1st opposite party even after a lapse of two years shows the carelessness of the 1st opposite party. In the circumstances of the case the 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the loss for non-delivery of the goods which are lying with the 1st opposite party since its arrival from Bangalore on 06-03-2011. This act of 1st opposite party is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence we have no hesitation to hold the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss to the complainant.
16. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to deliver the goods or to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service along with costs of Rs.2,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which interest shall be paid @ 18% per annum from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 30th day of January, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Consignee copy dt.05.03.2011 issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.A2 Certificate issued by Shri Kumaran Graphic Machinery Private Limited,
Bangalore
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dt.18.01.2012 got issued by the complainant
to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4 Postal receipt dt.19.01.2012.
Ex.A5 Letter dt.15.2.12 issued by the Post Master Anantapur to the counsel for
the complainant.
Ex.A6 Office copy of the legal notice dt.12.03.2012 got issued by the complaint
to the opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A7 Postal receipt and served postal acknowledgement.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2
Sd/- - NIL Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR