BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



FA No.86/2009 against CC.No.72/2008 District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:



M/s.Navatha Road Transport,

Uppal Branch, Near Sub Registrar’s Office,

Laxma Reddy Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad – 500 039,

Rep. by its Manager, Sri G.Srinivasa Rao,

S/o.late Sri G.Appa Rao,

Hindu, 43 years, R/o.Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

Sri V.Ramasubba Reddy,

S/o.V.P.Subba Reddy, Hindu, 60 yrs.

R/o.H.No.9-60, Hanuman Nagar,

Boduppal Village, R.R.Dist.

…Respondent/Complainant.



Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.R.Chakradhar.

Counsel for the Respondent : Admn.stage.





QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.



MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)

*******



1. Aggrieved by the order in CC.No.72/2008 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had booked six articles vide bill No.26703-7 dated 15.5.2006, valued at Rs.40,000/- and the opposite party collected Rs.40/- towards insurance at the rate of Re.1/- per thousand rupees and also collected Rs.4,000/- towards insurance of the articles and further collected Rs.302.30 ps. Vide receipt No.49626 dated 15.5.2006 towards the value of the consignment. The complainant submits that on 31.5.2006 there was admittedly short delivery and one of the items, the compressor was not delivered. The complainant submits that the value of the compressor was Rs.25,0000/- and in spite of demand letters dated 28.3.2007 and 30.5.2007 the opposite party neither received the compressor nor paid the amount towards the cost of the compressor. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 14.6.2007 and received reply dated 26.7.2007 stating that the value of the articles was only Rs.4,000/-. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the value of the compressor viz. Rs.25,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs.

3. The opposite party filed counter admitting that one of the items viz. compressor was not delivered and also admitting the receipt of legal notice submitted that the rate of the compressor was only Rs.2,000/- since it is an old compressor and that the rate of interest claimed at 18% is highly excessive.

4. The District Forum based on the pleadings put forth by both parties and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Exs.B.1 to B.10 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- together with compensation of Rs.1,000/, legal expenses of Rs.1,000/-and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant never stated about the date of purchase, year of manufacturing and make of the missing article viz. compressor and that there is no evidence to state that the compressor was valued at Rs.25,000/-. He also contended that since it is an old article, the District Forum ought not to have awarded Rs.20,000/- towards the value of the compressor.

7. The facts not in dispute are that the complainant had consigned six items with the opposite party transport company on 15.5.2006 and one of the items i.e. the compressor was admittedly missing. The contention of the opposite party that the complainant had not declared the value of the compressor is unsustainable in view of the fact that in Ex.A.10 and A.11 quotations the value of new compressor 7.5 H.P. mentioned at Rs.28,200/- and Rs.30,937/- respectively. We observe from the record that the value of the articles is Rs.40,000/- and the complainant had paid Rs.4,000/- towards insurance of articles. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- irrationally has no legs to stand. Since the District Forum has rightly observed that the make is of the year 2000 and the value is estimated at Rs.20,000/- and that the opposite party has also not filed any documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that there are no substantial reasons to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.









8. Hence, this appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks. The office is directed to transmit the statutory amount to the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.

PRESIDENT



LADY MEMBER



MALE MEMBER

Dt:6.4.2009.