ANL PARCEL SERVICE Vs. VUDATA HAND LOOMS, VUDATA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the unsuccessful opposite parties in CC 1142/2006 before the District Forum, Guntur, where under, an order was passed directing to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,749/.77 ps to the complainant with interest at 9% pa. from the date of complaint till the date of realization for non-delivery of the consignment entrusted for transporting to the destination covered by Lorry receipt bearing No. 10802647x 2 dated 23.03.2006. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous both on question of fact and law.

(2.) The facts of the case disclose that the complainant is a manufacturer of Handloom clothes running in the name of Vudata Hand looms, Mangalagiri and he regularly used to book parcels through the first opposite party to various purchasers for the last ten years. In connection of his business two bundles of dress materials were booked through the first opposite party to the consignee Rex Exporters , Hyderabad, covered by invoice no. 40, worth Rs. 1,25,749.75 ps and another invoice no.41 worth Rs.52,766.75 ps were issued. The said invoices were kept along with the bundles. A sum of Rs.156/- was paid towards parcel booking charges for which L.R.. No. 10802647x 2 dated 23.03.2006 was issued. But only one bundle covered by invoice no. 41 having dress material worth Rs.52,766.75ps was delivered to the consignee , i.e., Rex Exporters at Hyderabad. The other bundle worth Rs.1,25,749.75ps was undelivered till date. The complainant demanded the opposite party for delivery of the missing bundle but no efforts were taken. So a legal notice was issued to the second opposite party. though, it was received, the second opposite party kept quite. The opposite parties have committed negligence and also deficiency in service and as such, the complainant is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,25,749.75 ps with interest there on.

(3.) The first opposite party filed its version stating that the complainant had entrusted two bundles through the opposite party ANL parcel service, Mangalagiri for delivery of it to Rex Exporters, Hyderabad. It is denied that the value of two bundles consists of sarees ad dress materials worth about Rs.1,78,516.50 Ps. L. R. No 10802647 was issued on payment of Rs.156/- basing o the weight of the goods but not on the value of the goods. Bu the complainant is put to strict proof of its contents. Further the complainant had not declared the value of the goods nor given the details of it, so also, description of the goods as Handloom cloth by supplying a invoice of it. The opposite party collects 2% of the value of the goods if the value of the goods is declared. Had the value been declared freight charges of Rs.4000/- would have been collected. When the goods are on higher value, the goods should have been insured which the complainant failed to take any steps. The complainant has suppressed the value of the goods in order to avoid payment of freight charges @ 2%. Open delivery was given in respect of the other bundle but its value is denied. On the respective contentions, the points that arose for consideration before the District Forum are (1) whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and (2) to what relief. The complainant along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. A-1 to A-20 in support of his claim. On consideration of the documentary evidence, the District Forum held that on principles of equity, the complainant is entitled for the value of the cost of the missing bundle worth Rs.1,25,749.77ps. Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from any factual and legal infirmity for its interference ?