SURAM SUBBA REDDY vs Navatha Road Transport

THE complainant, who partly succeeded in O.P. No. 140/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole, is the appellant before this Commission.

THE complainant is an agriculturist of Ondutla village of Bestavaripeta Mandal in Prakasam District. He got a bore well sunk in his land, for raising commercial crops, and sent his cousin one Venkata Reddy to Vikarabad to purchase a Submersible Motor, Pump Set and Panel Board. Venkata Reddy purchased the Submersible Motor, Pump Set and Panel Board for Rs. 30,000/- and entrusted these three articles to R-2 for carriage and delivery at Bestavaripeta, the consignee being the complainant. Enquiries made at Bestavaripeta, after four days after the entrustment, revealed that only one of the items has reached Bestavaripeta and the remaining two items were not received even after 15 days. THE complainant made several trips to Bestavaripeta and has also spoken over the phone on four occasions by spending Rs. 500/-, but it was of no avail. THE crop raised by the complainant worth Rs. 30,000/- has withered away due to the negligence of the respondents. THE complainant has incurred heavy loss and suffered mental agony. He claimed Rs. 30,000/- towards cost of Submersible Motor Pump Set, Rs. 30,000/- towards investment for raising Tomato and Mirchi crop, and Panel Board, Rs. 30,000/- for the loss of future income and Rs. 2,500/- towards expenses incurred by him for visiting the office of the respondents and making phone calls and Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony suffered by him. In all he claimed Rs. 1,02,500/-. R-1 filed his counter denying that the complainant has purchased the Submersible Motor Pumpset and Panel Board for Rs. 30,000/-. It is further alleged that in the consignment note the value was declared as Rs. 13,000/- and that the Motor Pump Set and Panel Board were not new. It admitted the entrustment of the three boxes to it, and that only two boxes reached the destination and one was missing and it could not be traced even after making best efforts. He further averred that the compensation claimed is exorbitant as the expenses incurred are not true and the complainant cannot be compensated for loss of crop, as he could have made alternate arrangements. It is further averred that the consignment of the complainant was detained by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer at Giddalur as proper documents were not available/produced, but the respondent made sincere efforts and got the consignment released on 11.9.1995 and in spite of repeated requests made by the respondents'' Agent at Bestavaripeta, the complainant has refused to take delivery of the two articles. In view of the Carriers Act, 1965 a suit has to be filed and the complaint is not maintainable.

Basing on these pleadings, the District Forum allowed the complaint granting Rs. 13,000/- towards cost of the articles, Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of crop and Rs. 500/- for expenses incurred by him for visiting the office of the respondents; in all it awarded an amount of Rs. 18,500/-.

NOT satisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the complainant preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is whether the complainant sustained any loss and is he entitled for any damages ?

IT is not in dispute that the complainant through one Venkata Reddy has purchased a Submersible Motor Pump Set and Panel Board at Vekarabad and has booked the consignment to Bestavaripeta. The complainant claims its value at Rs. 30,000/-; while the respondents contend that it is only Rs. 13,000/- as per the value given by the complainant''s agent in the Way Bill and Ex. B-2, the Form 10 appended to it. The respondents also denied that the complainant has sustained a loss of Rs. 20,000/- on account of the withering of crop. The only question is whether the value of the articles is Rs. 30,000/- as stated by the complainant or Rs. 13,000/- as stated by the respondents. The complainant belongs to a small village near Bestavaripeta in Prakasam District. He has sent his cousin Venkata Reddy to Vikarabad for purchase of Submersible Motor Pumpset and Panel Board. No evidence has been let in by the complainant that he has purchased a new Submersible Motor Pump Set and Panel Board for Rs. 30,000/-, but in the Way Bill the cost of articles is shown as Rs. 13,000/-. The cost is only Rs. 13,000/- but not Rs. 30,000/-. No evidence has been produced to that fact. Besides that what is the necessity for the complainant to depute someone to Vikarabad near Hyderabad to purchase the Submersible Motor Pump Set and Panel Board. If he intends to purchase a brand new one, it would be available either at Ongole or at Vijayawada. There is no need for him to send his cousin to Vikarabad to purchase a brand new one at Vikarabad. It is also doubtful whether such brand new pump sets are available at Vikarabad, a small place in Ranga Reddy District. Any amount of doubt arises on the conduct of the complainant in sending his agent to Vikarabad for the purchase of Submersible Motor Pump Set and Panel Board at Vikarabad. In Ex. A-1 Way Bill the value of the goods is mentioned as Rs. 13,000/-. So the complainant''s Agent is aware of the value of the goods. The act of the Agent binds the principal, the complainant. The complainant at this stage cannot claim the value of the goods at Rs. 30,000/-, as only a second hand set was purchased by him. With regard to the damages to the crop, the complainant ought to have made attempts to mitigate the damages, but instead he claims that he allowed the crop to wither away. Taking these circumstances into consideration the District Forum has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of the crop to the complainant which is justifiable. It also awarded Rs. 500/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant in visiting the offices of the respondents. The compensation awarded is reasonable and justifiable. The complainant cannot claim any further damages.

WE find no merit in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed but without any costs. F.A. No. 663/1997 : 12. The unsuccessful opposite parties 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 140/1995, on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole, filed F.A. No. 663/1997 aggrieved by the direction to pay Rs. 18,500/- to the complainant with interest at 18% per annum from 23.7.1997 till the date of realisation together with costs of Rs. 500/-. Out of Rs. 18,500/-, Rs. 13,000/- towards cost of articles, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of crop and Rs. 500/- for expenses incurred by the complainant for visiting the office of the respondents. 13. In view of our discussion in the above paragraphs, the appeal preferred by the opposite parties is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Time for payment six weeks. Appeals dismissed.