State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Claims Department,Anl Parcel ... vs Sri Rani Sathiji Bajaj,N. H. No.7, ... on 19 February, 2010
A
P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA
No.1394/2008 against CC. No.39/2008 on the file of the District Forum, Adilabad
Between:
1.
Claims
Department,
ANL
Parcel Service,
4-5-674/6/5,
Hyderguda,
Hyderabad.
2.
ANL Parcel
Service,
Bus
Stand, Adilabad
Appellants/ Opposite parties.
And
Sri Rani Sathiji Bajaj,
N. H. No.7, Adilabad,
Rep. by its proprietor,
Sachin Agarwal, s/o Pavan
Kumar Agarwal,
Aged 30 years, occ: Business
Ranisathiji Colony,
Adilabad Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. P. Raja Sripathi Rao
Counsel for the Respondent
: Party-in-person.
CORAM :
Sri Syed Abdullah Honble Member
And Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member Friday, the Nineteenth Day of February, Two Thousand Ten Oral order : ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member ) The appellants are the Opposite parties in C. C. 39/2008 before the District Forum, Adilabad against whom an order was passed directing to replace similar article ( Laptop) or pay its value to the respondent/ complainant within one month from the date of passing of the order. Interest to accrue at 9% after due date till realization.
Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had sent an LG Laptop worth Rs.34,000/- to Shiva L G Service Centre at Warangal through ANL parcel service under goods consignment note no. GC 00210338 dt.29.3.2008 for which a sum of Rs. 141/- was collected towards charges. The consignee ie. Shiva LG Service Centre went to take delivery of the parcel from the Warangal ANL parcel service and when the parcel was opened he found that the Laptop was missing from it. A written complaint was sent to OP. 1 informing about the missing of Laptop for which a reply was sent stating that the matter was under investigation. The complainant has no other option except to approach the District Forum for redressal of the grievance seeking a compensation for the act or omission on the ground of deficiency in service.
The OP.2 in it version had denied that the LG Laptop worth Rs.34,000/- was actually sent through the parcel service. The complainant has not disclosed the contents of the parcel/consignment or mentioned its value in the receipt. In the absence of disclosure of its value or its contents, the OPs are only liable to pay Rs.50/- towards compensation and It cannot be said that there was any deficiency . OP. 2 is not aware that the consignment that was opened by Shiva LG Service Centre in the presence of OP 1 s representation.
The complainant along with his affidavit filed Ex. A! consignment receipt and copy of letter at. 21.4.008 which was addressed to OP. 2 informing about the missing of the consignment booked through the ANL parcel service. The OPs have not filed any documentary evidence. On consideration of the material on record, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to return the similar laptop or pay its value to the complainant within one month and interest to accrue at 9% on the value of the laptop after expiry time for compliance.
The strong hold contention raised in the appeal grounds, during the hearing of the arguments, is that it is the duty of the consignor to disclose the contents of the consignment as well its value but no such description is made or mentioned in the Ex A-1 consignment note.enclosing bill or invoice.
It is urged that as per rules the transporter liability is only to pay damages of Rs.50/- which is specially mentioned in the cover note itself, it is also harped that there is no evidence on record to show that the consignment at the time of delivery was opened at the destination, much less, any endorsement was obtained from the concerned when delivery was made to Shiva Service Centre, Warangal. It is contended that the assertion which is made in an oath against oath and in the absence of any positive evidence it cannot be said that the Laptop said to have been sent in working condition which is or worth Rs.34,000/- as claimed by the complainant. It is also contended that the relief as granted by the District Forum is superfluous and exaggerated. It is also contended that nothing has prevented the complainant in filing the cash bill to show as to where he has purchased the said Laptop and at what price it was purchased and in the absence of any such crucial evidence the amount of Rs.34,000/- as claimed cannot be directed to be paid by the OP 1 and 2 fastening joint and several liability.
It is seen that in Ex A1 goods consignment note there are certain columns which are to be filled mentioning the description of particulars of the goods said to contain but both the complainant and the representative of OPs 1 and 2 have not taken note of it to get it mentioned. Both the complainant and the concerned representative of OP 2 are negligent in not noting the details of the particulars of the consignment or its value. The complainant has also contributed his own negligence in not disclosing the contents of the consignment or its value which he is supposed to mention in the consignment note. There is no evidence on record to show that the Shiva LG Service Centre at Warangal had opened the consignment in the presence of the representative of ANL parcel service at Warangal and found that the consignment was empty. It is also significant to note that the complainant had not filed cash bill or documentary proof to show that the Laptop which he purchased was sent to Shiva LG Service Centre. The assertions and denials are oath against oath. A person who asserts a fact which is within his knowledge is to be proved by producing documentary evidence and burden always rests on him as per Sec. 101 to 105 of Indian Evidence Act. Until the initial burden is discharged, the OPs need not rebut it. A claim cannot be allowed on the circumstances and probabilities of the case. It requires proof of the factual aspects. Merely because a consignment was booked with OP.2 to transport it to Shiva LG Service Centre, Warangal and on its delivery that consignment found to be empty, it cannot be taken into granted that the contents of the consignment were pilfered or committed theft of it.
The claim of the complainant that Laptop is worth Rs.34,000/- is only a unilateral version without any basis. Apart from it, there was a contributory negligence on his own part in not disclosing or mentioning the value of the consignment on the consignment note itself. Of course, Ex A1 terms and conditions indicates that in case of loss or damage of the consignment the liability is only at the rate of Rs.5/- per kg of actual weight and on that basis the OPs wanted to make payment of Rs.50/-.
The OPs cannot take shelter on this rule and offer to pay only Rs.50/- for the loss of the contents of the consignment.
It is an undisputed fact that consignment was booked and undertaken by OP 1 to delivery it at destination, i.e. at Shiva LG Service Centre, Warangal for which Rs.141/- was collected towards freight charges. The transporter is a duty bound in dispatching or transporting the goods through parcel service in good condition. It is the bounden duty to take all care and precautions for safe delivery of the contents of the consignment. The negligence on the part OP. 2s representative can also be attributed as negligence in not mentioning the details of the consignment or its value. So OP 1 and 2 are fastened with liability fixing a reasonable amount towards the value of the consignment. As the representative of OP fails to take all precautions in getting the details of Ex. A1 consignment note or ascertaining the details of the contents of the consignment any amount of dereliction can be attributed which constitutes deficiency in service. So for the said omissions and commissions the OPs are to be fastened with liability . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to reduce the value of the Laptop from Rs.34,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and the said amount is to be adjusted from out of the deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, Adilabad passed in CC 39/2008 by reducing the value of the Laptop from Rs.34,000/- to Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the appellants/opposite parties to the respondent/complainant and the said amount is to be adjusted from out of the deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal and obtaining stay. No order as to costs in the appeal.
Sd/-
Member Sd/-
Member