Kovvuru Regular Parcel Service Vs. T. Munikumar and Others

Kovvuru Regular Parcel Service vs T. Munikumar and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad Decided Jul 15, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1114072

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1114072
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Judge: A. Venkatarami Reddy, President, the Honourable Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member
Decided On: Jul 15, 1996
Case Number: F.A. No. 290 of 1996
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Comparative Citation: 1997 (2) CPJ 152

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kovvuru Regular Parcel Service

Respondent

T. Munikumar and Others

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citation: 1997 (2) cpj 152a. venkatarami reddy, president: 1. the case of the complainant in c.d.c. 206/95, district forum, chittoor, i.e. first respondent in this appeal is that he booked 150 kgs. shikakai at palamaner to be delivered at tirupathi to the transport service of the opposite parties. alleging that the goods were not delivered at tirupathi, complainant wrote a registered letter to the first opposite party calling upon him to enquiry into the matter and to see that goods are delivered to the complainant otherwise the opposite party has to pay the cost of the goods and also demanded rs. 516/- towards expenses and mental agony. 2. inspite of service of notice the opposite party did not contest the matter. relying on exs. a1, a 2 and a 3 which is legal notice, the district forum held that the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant jointly and severally rs. 516/- towards expenses and mental agony and rs. 250/- towards costs of the complaint. 3. aggrieved by the same this appeal is preferred. in this appeal it is submitted that 2 bags consignment was delivered on 3.4.95 to the complainant. but there is no evidence adduced to show that such delivery was affected and there is also no receipt signed by the complainant showing that he received the consignment. we are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. in the result, appeal is dismissed. no costs. appeal dismissed.

Full Judgment

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:

1. The case of the complainant in C.D.C. 206/95, District Forum, Chittoor, i.e. first respondent in this appeal is that he booked 150 kgs. Shikakai at Palamaner to be delivered at Tirupathi to the transport service of the opposite parties. Alleging that the goods were not delivered at Tirupathi, complainant wrote a registered letter to the first opposite party calling upon him to enquiry into the matter and to see that goods are delivered to the complainant otherwise the opposite party has to pay the cost of the goods and also demanded Rs. 516/- towards expenses and mental agony.

2. Inspite of service of notice the opposite party did not contest the matter. Relying on Exs. A1, A 2 and A 3 which is legal notice, the District Forum Held that the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant jointly and severally Rs. 516/- towards expenses and mental agony and Rs. 250/- towards costs of the complaint.

3. Aggrieved by the same this appeal is preferred. In this appeal it is submitted that 2 bags consignment was delivered on 3.4.95 to the complainant. But there is no evidence adduced to show that such delivery was affected and there is also no receipt signed by the complainant showing that he received the consignment. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the result, appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission S... Same Parties Kovvuru Regular Parcel Service vs T. Munikumar and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A. Venkatarami Reddy, President, the Honourable Mrs. J. Anand...

Land Acquisition