Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/153/2017

Mr.D.Ajith Kumar Proprietor, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.M/s.City Express Parcel Service, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.R.Munusamy

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                   MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.153/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.242/2012 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

      DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

D. Ajith Kumar

Proprietor

Auto Impex, K.G.Plaza                                      M/s. S.R. Mounaswamynathan

No.41-44, G.P.Road                                                     Counsel for

T-1, III Floor, Chennai – 2                                     Appellant / Complainant

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       M/s. City Express Parcel Service

No.112, ATT Colony

Coimbatore

 

2.       M/s. City Express Parcel Service                        M/s. H. Rajasekar

No.1, Striner Street                                              Counsel for

Periyamedu, Chennai                                 Respondent/ Opposite party

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to enhance the compensation awarded as per the order of the District Commission dt.23.6.2015 in CC.No.242/2012.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.1.2023, upon hearing the arguments of the bothsides and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant, as against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North), dt.23.6.2015 in CC.No.242/2012 praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission.

 

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is as follows:

          The complainant booked two carton boxes with the opposite party in Coimbatore to deliver the same at Chennai on 10.2.2012.  The said carton boxes contain two multimedia devices.  The Assistant of the complainant, at his office at Chennai, found that only one box out of two numbers sent from Coimbatore was delivered. Immediately, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party about the missing of the box.  The 1^st opposite party informed that they would deliver another box in the next consignment.  Therefore the complainant waited till 26.2.2012, but there was no response from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant sent a letter on 27.2.2012, annexing the consignment note delivered by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant sent a notice on 23.7.2012 again, stating that the box is not delivered, for which the 1^st opposite party replied by admitting the non-delivery of the consignment.  The Invoice of the 1^st opposite party clearly contains the value of the consignment.  Because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had incurred a loss to the tune of Rs.140000/-.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- towards damages suffered by the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 

 

3.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties, by filing their written version as follows:

          The complainant had booked two consignments with the 1^st opposite party on 10.2.2012 from Coimbatore to Chennai.  Out of two consignments, one was delivered to the complainant.  The other one had not been delivered.  Inspite of the best efforts the said consignment could not be traced and all prudent steps were taken by the opposite parties to trace out the second consignment.  The Lorry Receipt No.23010 in which the complainant had booked the two consignments clearly reveal that the value of the two consignments are totally Rs.500/-, therefore the cost of the materials alleged to be contained in the cartons are imaginary.  As per the terms and conditions printed in the backside of the consignment note it is clearly stated that the “Luggage booked specifically limits to its liability to the maximum of Rs.2000/- per consignment for any cause”.  But the complainant conveniently has failed to file the backside of the consignment note as a document. Having disclosed the value of the two consignments as Rs.500/- the opposite parties cannot be saddled with the liability for loss of its contents.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

 

4.       In order to prove their respective cases, on the side of the complainant, alongwith proof affidavit 7 documents were filed, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A7.  There was no document filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

5.       The District Commission, after analysing the entire evidence, had come to the conclusion by holding that the maximum liability as admitted by the opposite parties is only Rs.2000/-.  Though the declared value was Rs.500/- as per Ex.A3, considering the suffering of the complainant due to loss of consignment, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2000/- towards loss of consignment, apart from awarding a sum of RS.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost.  Aggrieved against the order impugned, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties.

 

6.       The main contention of the complainant is that at the time of booking the consignment, he had also produced the invoice copy to the opposite parties, which would reveal the actual value of the consignment.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.140000/- towards the value of the lost consignment. 

 

7.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully gone through the materials placed on record. 

 

8.       As per the consignment note Ex.A3, the declared value of the consignment was only Rs.500/-.  Having booked the consignment by declaring the value of the consignment @ Rs.500/-, now the complainant cannot rely on the Invoice, and claim a sum of Rs.140000/- towards the value of consignment.  For claiming the value of consignment, the complainant ought to have declared the value of the consignment,   and   paid the   booking charges   pertaining to the  value

of the consignment.  Having failed to do so, now the complainant cannot claim the value as per the Invoice.    Therefore, we find no infirmity in awarding a sum Rs.2000/- towards the loss of consignment by the District Commission, which in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice. 

 

9.       However, considering the negligence committed by the opposite parties, we feel that amount awarded @ Rs.5000/- appears to be on the lower side, and the same is hereby ordered to be enhanced @Rs.10,000/-.  Except this modification the order of the District Commission remains unaltered.  This appeal is ordered accordingly.

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North)  in CC.No.242/2012 dt.23.6.2015, and the compensation awarded @ Rs.5000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.   Except this modification, the rest of the order remains unaltered.   There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

          R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R. SUBBIAH

                    MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT