BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

KRISHNA DISTRICT, AT VIJAYAWADA

C.C. No. 174/2021

Between:

Parisapogu Chandrahas -- Complainant

And

1. Joseph Raj Melbin of

M/s. Raj Auto care, Periyar Nagar,
Puliakulam, Coimbatore-641045
Tamilnadu

2. M/S. Navata Road Transport,

Main Road, Kondapalli,
Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District -- Opposite-Parties

REPLY VERSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd OPOSITE PARTY UNDER

SECTION 13 Cl. (2) Sub Cl. (b) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

1. The material allegations made in the complaint against this opposite party are all untrue

and false. This opposite party puts the complainant to strict proof of those allegations in

the complaint, which are not either specifically admitted or traversed herein. The

complaint is not maintainable against this opposite party either in law or on fact.

2. This Opposite-Party is not aware of the averments/allegations made in Paragraph 3 (2) of

the Complaint. As such, the complainant is put to strict proof of the said

allegations/averments. So also, this Opposite-Party is no way concerned with the

averments/allegations made in Paragraph 3 (3) of the complaint and it is for the Opposite-

Party either to deny or admit.

3. It is submitted that the averments/allegations made in Paragraph 3(5) of the complaint

against this Opposite-Party are not true and correct. It is submitted that the complainant

clearly admitted, as can be seen from the allegations made in the said paragraph, that the

1st Opposite-Party supplied useless, damaged and old materials. It is submitted that this

Opposite-Party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present complaint.

Whatever the material booked by the 1st Opposite-Party, this Opposite-Party transported

the same. If it all there is any grievance, the complainant ought to have proceeded against

the 1st Opposite-Party. Making allegations that this Opposite-Party colluded with the 1 st

Opposite-Party and also making frivolous claims by impleading this Opposite-Party are

unwarranted in the light of clear admissions made by the complainant.

 2

4. The material allegations made in Paragraph 3 (6) of the complaint that this opposite

party neglected to import the material from Kondapalli and that the staff of this opposite

Party were irregular and negligent mode of discharging the duty, i.e. while downloading

the material from the vehicle from Coimbatore, and that the complainant refused to

receive the material because the visibility of the machinery is not good and it appears in

damaged mark and with defects and that as the complainant did not receive and informed

to the Opposite Party No.1 that the said material was in damaged condition and that the

Opposite Parties 1 and 2 colluded with each other and etc., are all frivolous and baseless.

5. It is submitted that on 20.01.2021, 1st Opposite Party has booked the consignment to the

complainant, consisting of One Air Compressor and 5PB & 1CB of Spares, vide TO-Pay

Way Bill No.H053401, and again on 22.01.2021 the 1st Opposite Party booked

consignment, consisting of 1CB & 1PB of Wrench Trolley vide TO-Pay Way Bill

No.H053424, both to be transported from Coimbatore, Tamilnadu State to Kondapalli,

Andhra Pradesh State. As per the said two Way Bills, the Freight Charges of Rs.8,222/-

(Rs.7,513+Rs. 709/-) are to be paid at the time of taking delivery of the consignments.

6. It is further submitted that on 25.01.2021, when the consignment reached the destination,

the complainant refused to take delivery of the consignment on the ground that the

material was damaged, not fit for use and not as per his specifications. The agents of this

Opposite Party repeatedly informed the complainant to take delivery of consignments by

paying freight charges as there is no space in the Godown to accommodate such a heavy

lot of consignments but the complainant did not take delivery of the consignment. It is

submitted there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of this opposite party in

discharging its duties as alleged by the complainant and also there is no need for this

Opposite Party to collude with the 1st Opposite Party, as alleged by the complainant in his

complaint and the 1st Opposite Party is just a consignor and utmost a stranger to this

Opposite Party. This Opposite Party has been engaged in the business of transporting

from several years and has many customers.

7. It is humbly submitted that this Opposite Party is no way concerned with the issue of

alleged damages to the consignment and the consignment is lying in the Godown of this

Opposite Party from 25.01.2021 till date and as such this Opposite Party is entitled to

claim demurrage charges against the Complainant.

 3

8. It is humbly submitted that the complainant is guilty of making false allegations as to the

alleged cause of action against this opposite party. This Opposite Party is not liable for

the alleged claims and compensation for the alleged deficiency of service and causing

mental agony and etc. The said claims are frivolous and there is no basis for the alleged

claims against this Opposite Party. This Opposite-Party reserves its right to file an

additional written statement as and when needed.

9. This opposite-party, therefore, prays and submits that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased

to dismiss the Complaint against this Opposite Party with costs and grant such other

releifs as may be deemed to be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

Filed By: Be pleased to consider,

Advocate for 2nd Opposite-Party 2nd Opposite-Party

Facts submitted in the paragraphs herein before are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Vijayawada
Date: 02.08.2022
2nd Opposite-Party.