State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Anl Parcel Service And Another vs Mallipeddi Apparao@ Abbu on 21 February, 2013
BEFORE
A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.344
OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.89 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM KAKINADA
AT EAST GODAVARI
Between:
1.
ANL
Parcel Service
Pithapuram, rep. by its Agent
Pithapuram
2.
ANL
Parcel Service Hyderabad
rep. by Vice President
D.No.3-5-874/05, Hyderguda
Hyderabad
Appellants/opposite
parties
A
N D
Mallipeddi Apparao@ Abbu
S/o Ramu, aged 35 years,
Prop. Saidurga Handloom
U.Kothaplli, E.G.District
Respondent/complainant
Counsel
for the Appellants M/s
P.Raja Sripathi Rao
Counsel for
the Respondent M/s A.B.Rameswar
Rao
QUORUM:
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite parties have filed appeal contending that the District Forum awarded an amount of `89,450/-
towards value of the goods of the consignment without any support of documentary evidence and the respondent had not declared the value of the goods in the consignment note and that the respondent had not insured the consignment.
2. The respondent filed complaint seeking for sarees or the value of sarees worth of `89,450/-. The respondent booked sarees worth of `89,450/- through the second appellant from Pithapuram to Hyderabad on 28.07.2008. The second appellant issued consignment receipt bearing number 15418177. The respondent addressed letter dated 4.08.2008 and got issued notice on 13.08.2008 claiming for return of the sarees and the second appellant had sent reply to the notice informing the respondent that they are making efforts to trace the sarees and thereafter the respondent filed the complaint.
3. The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that they had no knowledge of the contents of the consignment and the respondent had not mentioned the value of the consignment in the consignment note. In absence of the value of the goods in the consignment note, the appellants liability is limited to `100/-.The respondent fabricated the bill dated 29.07.2008 whereas the consignment was sent on 28.07.2008. The appellants requested for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The respondent in support of his claim, filed his affidavit and the documents,ExA1 to A8. On behalf of the appellants, its Agent filed his affidavit and no documents have been filed.
5. The points for considerations are:
i) Whether the matter involving disputed facts can be decided by consumer forum?
ii) Whether the appellants rendered deficient service by not returning the sarees and not paying the value of the sarees to the respondent?
iii) To what relief?
6. POINTS No.1 & 2: The facts which are not disputed are that the respondent on 28.07.2008 had sent through the second appellant consignment containing sarees to Kala Dhanalakshmi Sai Emporium, Hyderabad. Admittedly, the respondent has not mentioned the contents of the consignment or value thereof. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has produced true copy of bill dated 29.07.2008 which is subsequent to the date of the respondent sending consignment i.e., 28.7.2008 and he has submitted that the liability if any of the appellant cannot be more than Rs.100/-.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the value of the sarees which were sent as consignment by the respondent to the consignee in Hyderabad cannot be ascertained by a document fabricated for the purpose of filing the complaint. It is true the document Ex.A6 is dated 29.7.2008 and the respondent had sent the consignment on 28.7.2008 which is a day earlier and there has been no explanation whatsoever from the complainant for filing the bill containing a date subsequent to the date of sending the consignment.
8. The respondent got issued notice to the appellants on 13.8.2008 showing his intention to file suit before the Civil Court. The relevant paragraph of the notice reads as under:
If you fail to deliver the said parcel our client has to file a suit for the loss he sustained plus damages for the agony he sustained all these days and also file criminal case in Pithapuram for breach of Trust as you failed to deliver the costly articles. Inspite fo the trust our client had in you all these days, at least for contrary sake there is no response from you. On the other hand No.2 of you has been replying by pone that these things We dont care. No further notice will be issued to you. Unless you pay the damages and loss in Pithapuram Civil Judge Court. Our client will pursue legal remedies as per law as the persons responsible.
9. The question of fact in regard to the value of the sarees is disputed by the appellant which need detailed enquiry and examination of parties which is not possible in summary proceedings before Consumer Forum.
10. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Munimahesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 the insurance company disputed the genuineness of the documents and the Honble Supreme Court held that where the matter involves adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions, Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the matter and the complainant was entitled to seek relief in court of competent jurisdiction.
9. The Commission noted that the specific stand of the appellant was that there was mis-declaration in the proposal form and the false claim that the respondents wife was a teacher which as now appears is not the correct position. It also accepted that she was really not a teacher.
10. Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.
11. The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.
12. The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission.
13. Above being the position, the Commission was not justified to deal with the matter in the manner as was done. In our view, the directions of the State Commission were more appropriate keeping in line with the nature of dispute. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
11. The National Commission in Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust vs Orissa small Industries and another III(2007) CPJ 316(NC) and Omprakash vs Allahabad Bank III(2206)CPJ 418, held that the matter involving adjudication of disputed questions of facts has to be tried by competent court. Thus, we are inclined to give opportunity to the complainants to approach competent court for adjudication of the matter.
12. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to approach to the Court or any other Forum. In the event the complainant approaches the Court, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others. No costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.21.02.2013 కెఎంకె*