State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Chalapathi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Anl Parcel Service And Others Hyderabad on 23 April, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A. 913/2006 against C.D. 278/2005, Dist. Forum, Guntur Between: M/s. Chalapathi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Regd. & Central Office Rep. by its Manager & Foreman S. Venkateswara Rao D.No. 5-88-1, 2nd Floor, 3rd Line Lakshmipuram, Guntur-3. *** Appellant/ Complainant And 1. The Deputy General Manager ANL Parcel Service Regd. Office 3-6-500, Himayatnagar Hyderabad-500 029. 2. The Manager (Marketing Services) ANL Parcel Service 3-5-874/6/5, Hyderguda Hyderabad. 3. The Manager (Marking Services) ANL Parcel Service P.N.B.S. Complex, APSRTC Bhaskara Rao Peta Vijayawada. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. A. V. Sesha Sai Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. C. Raja Shekar Rao CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
& SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.) *** Complainant preferred this appeal against inadequacy of compensation granted to it by the Dist. Forum.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a registered chit fund company having its head office at Guntur and branch offices at various places including the one at Kadapa. On 10.
2. 2005 it sent security documents viz., chit agreement, promissory notes, guarantee agreements, cash vouchers, adjustment receipts, surety verification forms etc. pertaining to Ch. China Moulali, Syed Ibrahim, K. Anwar Basha and M. Kotaiah through respondent ANL parcel service to its Kadapa branch. The said cover was not delivered and when it informed the said fact, the respondent by letter Dt. 19.2.2005 stated that it was misplaced in transit and despite their best efforts they could not trace it. On that score it had sustained a loss of Rs. 2,52,799/- which the respondent was liable to reimburse the same and therefore it filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 2,52,799/- together with damages of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
3) The respondents parcel service filed counter resisting the case. While admitting that it received a cover through the complainant on 10.2.2005 for delivering the same to Kadapa branch, however, the same was misplaced during transit. In fact complainants messenger stated that the cover contains Photostat copies and duplicate office copies only. They would not accept valuable documents, as they will be sent through RTC buses. They made every effort to deliver the consignment. Now, it is beyond their control to trace the documents. By virtue of terms and conditions they were liable to pay Rs. 100/- towards loss or damage. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked while the respondents did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not prove that the documents worth Rs. 2,52,799/- were lost. It was not insured. Since the cover was misplaced and the same could not be traced and delivered, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum ought to have awarded the entire amount claimed, as the original documents were lost by the respondents parcel service.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order under appeal is liable to be set-aside?
8) It is not in dispute that the complainant a chit fund company tendered a cover evidenced under Ex. A1 in order to deliver it to its office at Kadapa. At the time, when the cover containing some documents were entrusted to the respondent parcel service, admittedly, the complainant did not mention its value and it was kept blank vide Ex. A1. It had paid an amount of Rs. 9/- + tax of Rs. 1/-
altogether Rs. 10/- towards delivery of the cover. If really the complainant were of the view cover contains important documents etc. worth. Rs. 2,52,799/- they should have mentioned the value of the cover on Ex. A1. In the very consignor copy it was mentioned I/We declare that the consignment does not contain cash / jewelry or any prohibited item. I/We agree to the terms and conditions mentioned over leaf and accept that in the event of loss, damage, delay/non-delivery the maximum liability of the company is only Rs. 100/-.
Having accepted the above terms and conditions, it cannot be said that it was unaware of the said terms and conditions. It is a company registered under Companies Act doing business in chit fund. While sending important documents it ought to have noted the value therein. Obviously, it intends to send important documents by paying nominal fee of Rs. 10/- and in the process gain profit towards sending of the parcel. The complainant except mentioning that it has sent important documents could not file any evidence to show that the cover contains documents pertaining to chit fund of their clients viz., CH. China Moulali and others. There is no proof that those persons have ever claimed those documents on the ground that they had borrowed the amount by depositing those documents in order to draw chit amounts. The chit fund company ought to have filed affidavit or some document to show that those documents were deposited with it. When the complainant had not mentioned on Ex.
A1 consignment note, now it cannot turn round and claim that it has sent those documents and therefore it has sustained loss. If that were to be the practice then unholy claims would be made stating that they have sent valuable documents, cash or jewelry etc. The complainant being a chit fund company should know that without declaration of the document, they may not be entitled to claim return of the documents. Importantly, the complainant should have insured the said cover.
9) The fact remains that the respondent did not prefer any appeal against awarding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for its deficiency in service. Considering the nature of the claim and the liability being restricted to Rs. 100/- as per the terms of Ex. A1 and the Dist. Forum having awarded Rs. 10,000/- for which no appeal was preferred by the respondents parcel service, we do not see any ground to interfere with the said order. Since the complainant could not establish that the cover contains valuable documents worth Rs. 2,52,799/- it was not entitled to the amount claimed. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed.
However, no costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ LADY MEMBER
3) _________________________________ MALE MEMBER Dt. 23. 04.
2009.