State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.M.S.Courier Service, Rep. By Its ... vs A.V.S.Chandra Reddy, S/O.Rama Krishna ... on 12 October, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATHI. FA.No.694/2012 against C.C.No.73/2011 District Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R.District. Between: G.M.S.Courier Service, Rep. by its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, No.189/1, 6th Crissm 3rd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. Appellant/2nd Opp.Party. And 1.A.V.S.Chandra Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, D.No.8/244, Mahaveer Road, Industrial Estate, Kadapa City 516 004. R.1/Complainant. 2.G.M.S.Courier Service, Rep by its Branch Manager, G.Srikanth, Branch Office, Jana Priya Lodge Complex, Near 7 Roads, Kadapa City. R.2/1st Opp.Party. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.Venkateswarlu. Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. P.Jayarami Reddy (for R1) R.2 held sufficient. QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) ******* Opposite Party 2, G.M.S.Courier Service (in short Courier Service) ,preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Kadapa directing it along with O.P.1 to pay Rs.27,000/- towards loss, Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs in all Rs.1,00,000/-.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he was Chief Business Associate in UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Infrastructure Technology Service Ltd, etc. and has been sending courier covers from Kadapa to Chennai, Mumbai and Hyderabad through O.P.1 Courier Service. While so, he had handed over 8 covers from 23.05.2011 to 01.06.2011 to send the same to the address mentioned on the covers by way of Courier Service by keeping 474 PAN applications of his clients in the said 8 covers. However, O.P.1 did not come to his office, nor informed the position of those 8 covers in regard to their delivery. When he enquired with the neighboring shopkeepers, it was found that the said covers were handed over to a neighbor shop-keeper, from whom he had taken delivery. In fact the covers had to be delivered within one or two days, otherwise the company (UTI) would impose a fine of Rs.5/- per day on one application. Thus he had sustained a loss of Rs.27,000/- towards fine imposed by the UTI. The stipulation in the agreement between the UTI , TSL and complainant was that in case of delay in delivery a fine of Rs.5/- per day per application would be imposed. When he sent legal notice, O.P.1 refused to receive the same, while O.P.2 gave a reply with false allegations. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs.27,000/- towards loss, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
R.1 and R.2 did not choose to contest and therefore, they were set exparte.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8.
The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the eight covers that were entrusted to O.P.1 in order to send the same by way of courier service to the Chennai address were not delivered by O.P.1 as agreed and therefore, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.27,000/- towards fine imposed by UTI and TSL, Chennai as per the agreement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum directed O.P. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.27,000/- towards loss, besides compensation of Rs.70,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- in all Rs.1,00,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, O.P.2 preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of Regional Office at Hyderabad. It did not consider the documents filed by the complainant. In fact there was no deficiency of service on its part. At any rate, its liability is restricted to Rs.100/-. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard?
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant was sending 474 PAN card applications to the addressee at Chennai through O.P.1, a Branch Office of O.P.2 courier service. It is also not in dispute that when the complainant handed over 8 covers containing 474 PAN card applications from 23.05.2011 to 01.06.2011, the said covers were not delivered to the addressee at Chennai by the O.P.1. However, the complainant found that the covers were kept in the neighbors shop. On that, the complainant collected the same and he himself delivered to the addressee at Chennai. In the process, there was a delay of 20 days. In the agreement between the complainant and O.P.2 Courier Service the following stipulation was made:
5.Penalties:
(e) In the event of any delay in forwarding the applications by PSA, the PSA shall pay Rs.5/- per every day of delay per application to UTI/ITSC.
Obviously the complainant has paid Rs.2,700/- in the light of the above said Clause. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is undoubtedly entitled to the amount which he had paid towards penalty and as such deficiency of service could be attributed to O.P.1.
O.P.2 without contesting for the first time raised a plea that only when P.P. was filed, it received notice. Even otherwise, it was O.P.1 that was liable. There was a full and final settlement with O.P.1 Branch Office which in fact had received the 8 covers containing 474 PAN Card applications. Later on 24.05.2011 it had appointed one Emanuel in the place of O.P.1 to carry out the Courier Service on its behalf. It has nothing to do with O.P.1.
He has been removed from service.
It was personal enmity. The District Forum wrongly directed it to pay the amount. O.P.1 and the complainant colluded and got the order behind its back. O.P.1 deliberately did not deliver the covers. A criminal case was initiated before XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate u/s.418, 406 and 499 I.P.C. Moreover, its liability is restricted to Rs.100/- as per the Shipment copy.
It may be stated that it was a dispute between O.P.1 and O.P.2 which has nothing to do with the complainant. There is no proof that the complainant has anything to do with the so called deficiency of service attributed by O.P.2 to O.P.1.
O.P.2 had never informed that O.P.1 was removed from its register and some other person was appointed in his place. No notice was given to the complainant at any time. These contentions have no place when deficiency of service attributed to its Branch Office. The public is not aware of the seizure of the Branch Office. The Zonal Office will continue to hold the liability. Therefore, when the complainant could prove that the covers were not delivered to the addressee and in view of the fact that the complainant was made to suffer by invoking Clause 5(e) O.P.2 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.27,000/-.
However, in regard to compensation, we are of the opinion that the award of Rs.70,000/- for the loss of Rs.27,000/- sustained was on the high side. However, the fact remains that the complainant is answerable to 474 applicants whose PAN card applications were entrusted to the Courier Service for delivery to the addressee. The delay occasioned, according to the complainant, was more than 20 days.
Considering the delay, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs.30,000/- at least 1 times of the loss could be reasonable and model towards mental agony. In regard to costs the complainant is entitled to the costs of Rs.5,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified directing O.P.No.2 to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation Contd5 together with costs of Rs.5,000/-
in this appeal. The rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.
________________________ PRESIDENT ________________________ MEMBER 12/10/2012.
Vvr.