BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No.125/2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC. No.132/2018 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, ADILABAD Between :-

The Branch Manager United Inida Insurance Company Ltd., branch office A.N. Complex 1^st Floor, opposite party bus depot, Nirmal, District Nirmal-504106 Now Rep. by its Deputy manager OD HUB United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional office 3-5-817 & 818 Basheerbagh Hyderabad.

…..Appellant/opposite party And M/s. Sri Ganapati Travels rep by Dasari Shobha r/o Door No.4-1-237, Vishwanathpet, Nirmal, District Nirmal.

…Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/ opposite party : M/s. M. Shanker Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant : Paper Publication filed QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri K.RangaRao - Presiding Officer-

Member- (Judicial).

&

Hon’ble Sri V.V.SESHUBABU- Member ( Judicial).

THURSDAY, THE 19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *****

Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri K.RangaRao- Presiding Officer-

Member - (Judicial).

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dt.03.12.2020 passed in CC. No. 132/2018 of the District Forum, Adilabad, and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant herein was opposite party and the Respondent were complainant in the CC. No. 125/2021 before the District Forum, Adilabad.

3. The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-

4. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, to prove her case the Complainant filed their evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. One behalf of opposite party filed evidence affidavit as DW1 and got marked B1 to B23.

5. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint in part as follows.

In the result, the compliant is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) at 18% interest from the date of delivery of the vehicle till realization with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only) a total amount of Rs.1,10,000/- ( Rupees one Lakh Ten thousand only) apart from interest. The cost of the complaint being Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) to be paid by the opposite party. Compliance within (4) weeks from the date of receipt of order filing which the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the opposite party as per the laws found in Consumer Protection Act.

6. Aggrieved by the above the order of the District Forum, by the Appellant/complainant preferred the present appeal FA. No.489/2019 with the following grounds of appeal:-

(i) The order dismissing the complaint is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case but also against the well-settled principal as such the same is liable to be set aside..

(ii) The District Forum ought to have allowed the complaint instead of dismissing the same.

(iii) The District Forum grossly erred in dismissing the complaint not taking into consideration the clarification given by the complaint with regard to destiny delivery charges (DDC) and GRI (General Rate increase).

(iv) The District Forum ought to have directed the opposite party to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant due to delay in delivery of goods at destination place but the District Forum simply held that though the complainant and opposite parties have not filed the BOL ( Bill of loading) and MBL ( Master Bill of lading).

(v) The District Forum ought to have seen that as per the version of opposite party the GRI was effected from 01.01.2007 but opposite party issued invoice on 17.1.2017 without disclosing the applicability of GRI as raised by Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(Vi) The District Forum have to directed to refund a sum