1
Date of filing: 10.04.2013.
Date of disposal: 29.07.2013.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Monday, the 29
th day of July, 2013
C.C.No.51 of 2013
Between:
B. Venkata Reddy, S/o late Erukula Reddy, Indian, Hindu, Aged about 35 years,
Advocate, R/o.D.No.41-21/4-12, Bramarambapuram, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada – 13. …… Complainant.
And
1. The Manager, Professional Courier, D.No.14-4-4, Sambamurthy Road, Hanuman Peta, Vijayawada.
2. The Professional Courier, Regional Office – 501, 5
th Floor, Jade Arcade, Opp: Hotel(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for adirection to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay unliquidated damages of Rs.50,000/- and to pay costs for not delivering the cover within time.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows: The complainant is an advocate. His colleague A.V. Subrahmanyeswara Rao booked a letter through opposite party courier service on 10.1.2013 for delivery at Vijayawada. It was not delivered within stipulated schedule. The cover contained important documents for filing. Inspite of repeated complaints there was no proper response from the opposite party office either at Rajampeta or at Vijayawada. The cover was delivered to the complainant on 18.1.2013. Then the complainant lodged written complaint to Mr. Anji who was looking after the Vijayawada office of courier service. There was no positive response from the opposite party either by way of
2
explanation or giving reasons for delay. Due to delayed delivery the complainant could not lodge caveat before High Court of Andhra Pradesh and meanwhile the defendant in
A.S.No.987/2013 obtained stay of execution. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite party on 1.2.2013 and on receipt of reply the complainant sent a rejoinder notice on 13.2.2013. Since there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the present complaint is filed seeking compensation.
3. The 1
4. The complainant filed his affidavit as deposition of PW-1. The Manager of the 1
behalf of the complainant and no documents are marked for the opposite parties.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the parties.
6. The points for determination are:
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to amounts as calimed?
st opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in complaint and further stating as follows: A.V. Subrahmanyeswara Rao booked a cover to deliver at Vijayawada and the cover was delivered on 18.1.2013 to the complainant. Due to Pongal festival holidays and the labour holidays the entrusted cover was not delivered to the addressee at the complainant expected date. The address particulars were also not easily traced as the cover was not containing telephone number or mobile number of the addressee. The cover does not bear the permanent landmark particulars. At the time of delivery the delivery boy was retained by the complainant for more than one hour. The complainant harassed the delivery boy and obtained some signatures from him. The sender did not inform the urgency or nature of the cover but made allegations against the opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of person who booked thecover. There is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.st opposite party filed his affidavit as deposition of DW-1. Exs.A1 to A8 are marked onPoint No.1
: 7. The parties admit that one A.V. Subrahmanyeswara Rao booked a cover at Nandalur office of the opposite parties on 10.1.2013 for delivery to the complainant at Vijayawada. The cover was delivered on 18.1.2013. The complainant contends that there was delay and consequently the complainant suffered loss. The opposite party says in reply notice under Ex.A5 that as there were holidays on 13 January the office remained closed and the staff could not locate the house of thecomplainant on 16.1.2013 and 17.1.2013 and cover delivered on 18.1.2013. We cannot deny the fact that 13 th, 14th and 15th of January are holidays. Then the cover should3
have been delivered on 16
th or 17th but the cover was delivered on 18.1.2013. Thereason is that the house of the complainant could not be traced. The cover is not beforeus. But the consignment note printed on the reverse of Ex.A5 contains the house no.and the area and sub-area of the addressee. Merely because there was no phonenumber it cannot be said that the delivery boy could not locate the address, particularly when the door number is available. So we cannot accept the contention of the opposite party that the house of the complainant could not be located and for that reason the letter could not delivered on 16th and 17th of January. Therefore we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service to that extent. Since beneficiary is also a consumer, this complaint is maintainable without adding the sender of the cover as party.Point No.2
8. When it is found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to compensation. The amount of compensation depends on nature and extent of loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that due to delay in receiving the cover containing important papers the opponent had obtained orders of stay of execution of decree from High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S.No.987/2013. It may be vacation appeal number, otherwise such number cannot be reached either in High Court or in Subordinate courts by 18 the copies of documents received showing the importance or urgency.
9. High Court of Andhra Pradesh was on Pongal vacation from 7.1.2013 to 18.1.2013. There could be only vacation bench during that period. 13
11. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision of Apex Court in
:th, 14th and 15th were public holidays. So there cannot be bench during those three days. Unless the details are furnished by the complainant we cannot readily assume that the stay orders were passed on 17.1.2013 or 18.1.2013. Therefore it cannot be said that the advocate suffered serious inconvenience due to delay in delivery of the cover. Then, only nominal compensation may be awarded. 10. It is the contention of the 1st opposite party that the complainant had unnecessarily detained the delivery boy for more than one hour and harassed him and obtained signatures by force. The complainant has stated that he got acknowledgment from one Anji on 18.1.2013 after lodging the complaint. The said acknowledgement is not filed. If such treatment was given to the delivery boy it cannot be appreciated. However it is not going to affect the deficiency pointed out.Patel Roadways Limited Vs Birla Yamaha Limited
Transport Corporation of India Limited Vs Veljin Hydrair Ltd.,
2004 (4) SCC 91, wherein it was held that loss of goods or non-delivery of goods entrusted to common courier would amount to deficiency in service. He also relied upon a ruling of Apex court in M/sCivil Appeal4
No.3096/2005 decided on 22.2.2007, wherein the Supreme Court held that the entire cost of consignment has to be paid by the courier for non-delivery of consignment.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant also relies upon a ruling of National Commission in 125 NC, wherein the National Commission had ordered refund of the value of
consignment lost during transit to the carrier. All these three cases relate to total loss of consignment and non-delivery and accordingly the courts allowed payment of value of
the goods lost or not delivered. They have no application in the present case when there was only a delay.
13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that compensation may be assessed at Rs.1,000/- inclusive of costs.
14. In the result this complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and costs. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date of this order. Complaint for rest of the reliefs is dismissed. Dictated to Steno N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 29th day of July, 2013.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 01.2.2013 Original Copy of legal notice issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A2 Postal receipts.
Ex.A3 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 09.02.2013 Copy of reply notice issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A6 13.02.2013 Copy of rejoinder issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A7 Postal receipt.
Ex.A8 Postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of the opposite parties: - Nil- PRESIDENT
Paradise, M.G. Road, Secunderabad – 500 003. …. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 26.7.2013, in the presence of complainant as inperson; Sri. K. Kumar, advocate for 1 opposite party remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
