BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member President (FAC)

And

     Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 18^TH day of June, 2013

C.C.No.88/2012

Between:

B.Papanna, S/o.B.Sriramulu,

Hindu, Business, age 36 Years,

Shop No.52-239/4, S.K.S. Complex, Old Bus Stand, Kurnool 518 001.

                                …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

   1.  ICL Courier and Logistics, Represented by its Director/Proprietor,

        H.No.11/3,Rt.Opp.Airport Line,Begumpet, Hyderabad - 16.

   2.  ICL Courier and Logistics, Represented by its Manager/Proprietor,

        Shop No.20, U-Con Shopee, Opp. New Bus Stand, Kurnool - 518 003.                                                 

 ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.CH.Lakshmaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri.S.Promod Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                               ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member President (FAC))                                                             C.C. No.88/2012

1.     This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying a direction on opposite parties for the payment of:-

1. Rs.9,000/- as damages for the parcel containing 60 PAN Card coupons each Worth of Rs.150/- together with interest 18% per annum from the date of booking i.e.,         15-07-2010;
2. Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony;

1. Rs.3,000/- as cost of the case;

2.    Briefly complainant booked a parcel with opposite parties on            15-07-2010 at Kurnool to deliver at Chennai.  The parcel contained 60 Pan Cards Coupons each worth of Rs.150/-.  The tracking number of parcel is 10965579 dated 15-07-2010.  Opposite party collected Rs.50/- towards courier charges.  As per the terms and conditions the parcel should be delivered to the consignee with in three days but it was not delivered.  After several equines, the complainant neither received delivery intimation nor satisfactory reply from opposite parties.  Search of opposite parties website to find out the transit status of the parcel revealed that “Shipment Picked up”.  As opposite parties failed to give proper replies to the queries of the complainant, this case is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties claiming appropriate reliefs.

3.     Opposite parties filed written version denying their liability to complainant’s claim.  Opposite parties admitted booking of a parcel vide No.10965579 on 15-07-2010 but denied its contents worth of Rs.9,000/- PAN Cards Coupons and its packing in the presence of opposite party No.2.  Opposite parties averred that they explained the status of transit of the consignment clearly to the complainant and finally informed about lodging of complaint in P.S.Kurnool on 16-07-2012.  Opposite parties submit that they also explained about liability in case of consignment loss or damage, and never assured the payment of Rs.9,000/- to complainant.  As per the terms and conditions in the consignment note they are ready to compensate the loss.  Declaration of contents is necessary if the consignment consists of huge amounts or valuables.  In the absence of such declaration, the complainant is not liable for any compensation.  If the opposite parties are known that the parcel contains valuables, they would have entered into a separate agreement and charged at special rates to shoulder the risk or would have suggested for insurance of parcel.  Since the matter is complicated, Civil Court is competent to deal the case.  Further opposite parties submitted that the complainant is working as Tax consultant and deals with filing Income Tax returns and agent for PAN Card, the alleged consignment booking with opposite parties is purely commercial with profit motives.  Under section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant is not Consumer.  Opposite parties finally submit that if at all there is any liability on them for any loss or damage to consignment as per terms and conditions it is limited to Rs.100/- for each consignment.  In view of the above reasons opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the case.

4.     Sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A6 are filed by the complainant.  Opposite parties filed a memo to treat the written version as sworn affidavit.  No document filed in their support. 

5.     Complainant filed his written arguments and submitted his oral arguments. No representation form opposite parties to file written arguments and to submit oral arguments. 

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant made out a case to prove deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Since the consignment, destinated to UTI Technology Service, Chennai booked by the complainant with opposite party No.2 on 15-07-2010 was not delivered, a complaint was filed before Hyderabad Forum – II.  On the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction the complaint was returned to the complainant with a liberty to file appropriate Forum.  Ex.A6 is copy of order in C.C.No.93/2012 dated 17-07-2012 of Hyderabad Forum – II.  Hence this complaint is filed before this Forum in C.C.No.88/2012 dated 07-11-2012.  Ex.A1 Courier Receipt dated 15-07-2010.  It reveals that opposite party No.2 received a parcel addressed to UTI, Chennai by collecting Rs.50/- as courier charges.  This fact was admitted by opposite parties in their written version.  Ex.A4 is status report disclosing “Shipment Picked Up”.  Opposite parties also admitted the missing of parcel and lodging of a complaint in P.S., Kurnool.  The complainant issued a legal notice (Ex.A2) to opposite parties and demanded to pay Rs.9,000/- as damages to his parcel together with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.  Ex.A3 is postal receipt and acknowledgment, prove the serving of notice to opposite parties.  The contention of complainant in claiming Rs.9,000/- towards damages is that he booked sealed parcel by keeping 60 Coupons of PAN Cards each worth of Rs.150/- in presence of opposite party No.2, the total value of the parcel is Rs.9,000/- and it was not delivered to destination.  Hence he is entitled to receive compensation.  The contention of opposite parties to deny the complainant’s claim is that, the parcel was not closed before opposite party No.2, what is there in the parcel and its worth are not known to him.  If the complaint would have declared the value of the contents in the parcel, opposite party No.2 would have charged courier at a special rate or would have suggested insurance of the parcel.  The material papers filed on record disclose that opposite party No.2 receive a parcel whose value was not declared.  There is no supporting evidence to show that the parcel contains 60 PAN Cards Coupons each worth of rs.150/-.  But it is evident that the parcel which is supposed to deliver at the destiny was not delivered.  Misplacement of parcel by opposite parties amounts to negligence on their part.  According to terms and conditions on the consignment note the liability for damage should not exceed Rs.500/- for each consignment.  The contention of opposite parties that complaint is not a consumer is not acceptable because complainant has not hired courier service for making profit.  In view of the reasons stated above this Forum holds that the complaint has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties entitling to receive compensation. 

8.      Point No.iii:- The claim of Rs.9,000/- as damages to the parcel is not supported by any material evidence.  As per the terms and conditions of consignment note the damage shall not exceed Rs.500/-.  Hence Rs.500/- is granted as damages to the parcel along with courier charges of Rs.50/-. For causing mental agony by misplacing the parcel and giving improper reply opposite parties are charged Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant.  Rs.1,000/- is sanctioned as cost of the case. 

9.     In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.500/- as damages to the parcel together with Rs.50/- courier charges, Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony, Rs.1,000/- as cost of the case.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of this order, after one month 9% per annum interest is allowed on awarded amount. 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18^th day of June, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT (FAC)

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill           For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Courier Receipt dated 15-07-2010.

Ex.A2                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 15-10-2011.

Ex.A3                Postal Receipts dated 18-10-2011 and Postal

                Acknowledgement dated 24-10-2011.

Ex.A4        Photo copy of E-Mail copy of showing the status of the Consignment, dated 16-07-2010 (ICL Detailed report).

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Movement Particulars of the Consignment

                (Speed Post Details).           

Ex.A6                Order Copy in C.C.No.93/2012 dated 17-07-2012.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- NILL

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)          

    // 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               :