BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 20th day of April , 2010
C.C.No. 116/09
Between:
Mr. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Rajapullaiah,
D.No.50/476, Near B Camp Post Office, Kurnool-518004. …..Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor, Kurnool Book Centre, Air State Couriers Booking Point,
Shop No. 9, Municipal Shopping Complex, Maddur Nagar, Kurnool-518003.
2. M/s. Air State Couriers, Represented by its Manager,
40/331-A2, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool-518001.
3. M/s. Air State Couriers, Represented by its Managing Director,
8/3 RT Praksh Nagar, OPP. Main Entrance of Begum Pet Air Port, Begum Pet Main Road, Hyderabad-500 016. …Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for the complainant, and opposite parties is called absent set – exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramiah, President)
C.C. No.116/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of the C. P. Act,1986 praying
a) to return the cost of 4 saris Rs.6,000/- + Rs.6,000/- totally Rs.12,000/-
b) to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation and damages to the complainant or causing mental agony and hardship
c) to pay the costs of this complaint.
d) to order any such order or orders which are deems to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant purchased eight silk saris worth Rs.17,000/- on 17-01-2007 in New Kanchi Sari House, Adoni. Out of eight saris the complainant selected two crape saris worth Rs.6,000/- and two Banaras Silk Saris worth Rs.6,000/- to send the same to his newly wedded daughter who is residing in Chennai . The said four saris were packed and handed over to opposite party No. 1 on 18-01-2009 for booking the same to the address of the complainant’s son in law Mr. Nagaraju . Opposite party No.1 collected Rs.50/- towards charges .The booked saris did not reach the address . On enquiry the opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to give a complaint in writing .On 21-02-2009 the complainant gave his complaint to opposite party No. 1 in writing. The same was acknowledged by the employees of opposite party No. 1 . Due to non reaching of the booked saris the daughter and son in law of the complainant mis-understood the complaint and the complainant suffered mental agony . The opposite parties did not file the missing packet. On the demand notice given by the complainant ,the opposite party No. 2 gave false reply. There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 are marked . The opposite parties remained ex-parte .
4. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the
respondents/ opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
5. Point No.1 & 2: The case of the complainant is that on 18-01-2009 he sent four saris worth Rs.12,000/- to his son in law who is residing at Chennai and that he booked the parcel with opposite party No. 1 . The complainant filed Ex.A1 evidencing to the purchase of saris by him from New Kanchi Sari House from 17-01-2009 . Ex.A2 courier receipt dated 18-01-2009 .It reveals that the complainant sent a parcel to Sri. Narajan on 18-01-2009 . The opposite party No. 2 gave a reply for the demand notice got issued by the complainant . In the reply notice ,Ex.A4 it is clearly admitted that the complainant booked the cover through the office of the opposite party No. 2 at Kurnool. There is no dispute about booking of the parcel at Kurnool office by the complainant.
6. It is the case of the complainant that the consignee i.e, Sri Nagarajan did not receive the said parcel sent by the complainant through opposite party No. 1 . In the reply notice Ex.A4 also it is not mentioned that the booked parcel was delivered to the consignee . On the other hand it is stated by opposite party No. 2 in his reply notice that the company is liable to pay Rs.100/- only as per condition No.5 . It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A2 were not explained to him at the time of booking the parcel and that they can be ignored. He also cited a decision reported in I (2008) CPJ 61 where in it is observed “ Limited liability clause not brought to notice of complainant , liability not limited” .In the instant case also on the reverse side of Ex.A2 the terms and conditions are noted .As per condition No.5 the liability of the courier company is up to Rs.100/- or the amount of loss or damage or parcel actually sustained. As seen from the evidence available on record it is very clear that the complainant purchased saris and sent four saris worth Rs.12,000/- to his son in law through opposite parties 1 and 2. No evidence is produced by the opposite parties to show that the parcel was received by the consignee. There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to pay the cost of the four saris ie.,Rs.12,000/- to the complainant.
7.Point No.3:- In the result the complainant is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.12,000/- and costs Rs.500/- with interest at 9% p.a on Rs.12,000/- from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of April, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Purchase bill issued by Kanchi Sari House for Rs.17,000/- .
Ex.A2. Courier receipt bearing No. 21037754.
Ex.A3. Complaint with acknowledgement of OP.No.1 dated
21-02-2009 .
Ex.A4. Legal notice dated 11-04-2009 along with postal receipts
and acknowledgement cards.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
