BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  MANGALORE

Dated this the 31^st May 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI                   : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.108/2015

(Admitted on 12.3.2015)           

Plant.Tech Industarial Service Ltd,

Plot  No.245, Bikampady, Industrial Area,

New Mangalore 575011,

Represented by its

Joint managing Director,

Mr. Richard Monteiro,

S/o. Late Marcel Monteiro,

Aged bout 64 years.

                                                             ……… Complainant

(Advocate for Complainant by Sri  KDR)

                            VERSUS

1. The Station Manager,

The Authorities of Air India,

Air India Mangalore Division,

                 Mangalore.

2. Air India Limited,

Airlines House, 113,

Gurudwara, Rakabganj road,

New Delhi 110001.

                                                       …. Opposite Parties

        (Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by Smt. AN)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D

 This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The complainant claims on 10.9.2014 from Bajpe Airport in Opposite Party airline to Mumbai he sent cargo consignment containing important documents as per the invoice No. 098/IXE/40264571 on 10.9.2014 by paying of Rs.1,380/ and made arrangements for Rakesh Pandey to receive the cargo at Mumbai airport.  However even though waited till 8.30 P.M the cargo did not to Mumbai. On enquiry it was revealed the cargo that handedover to an aircraft crew due to negligence left with cargo left to Goa with documents the next flight from Goa to Mumbai  was on 11.9.2014.  Complainant has to rework prepare another set of original documents and personally carry out by flight and deliver the same.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties seeks the reliefs mentioned in the complainant.

2. Opposite Party in the version while reputing the allegations without prejudice admits to of receipt of the cargo from complainant for delivery at the time delivery of cargo Opposite Party its value was not disclosed. There was no promise of delivery or the mention the date and time at Mumbai.  The legal notice issued was properly replied. Complainant is not entitled for any of reliefs hence seeks dismissal of complaint.

3.     In support of the above complaint the complainant Richard Monteiro, filed affidavit evidence as (CW1) and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C3 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Nagesh Shetty, (RW1) Area Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and S.B. Kalatage answered the interrogatories served on him.

4.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

           We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:           

                         Point No.  (i) : Affirmative

                         Point No.  (ii) : Affirmative

                         Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.   POINTS No. (i):  The complainant booked cargo with Opposite Party on 10.9.2014  for delivery at Mumbai by paying invoice charge Rs.1,380/ to Opposite Parties  is un disputed. Hence there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties is established.  That the cargo was not delivered to Opposite Party on same date to the arranged person at Mumbai and there was delay in delivery is also admitted by Opposite Party.  But Opposite Party denied responsibility taken to deliver on the same day at Mumbai which was alleged by complainant. Hence there is dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) C.P. Act. Hence we answer point no. 1 in the affirmative.

6.  POINTS No. (ii):  At cargo did not reach Mumbai airport and was not delivered on 10.9.2014 is admited by Opposite Party.  Opposite Party in the version mentions that opposite party’s deliver the consignment that same was taken delivery by complainant and that delay as exited to Opposite Party.  In fact copy of intimation addressed to complainant dated 20.9.2014 shows that the cargo arrival notice mentions that the consignment cargo was not taken delivery by consigning the relevant portion in the documents now Marked at Ex.A1 which reads thus

We regret to state the consignees Mr. Rakesh Pandey have not taken delivery of the goods.  Consigned by you so for in spite of our Cargo Arrival notice No.I, dated 16.9.2014 and subsequent reminders No.s II dated 18.9.2014 and the registered reminder Nos. III dated 20.9.2014 goods, please deposit a sum of Rs........ With our office or remit the mount by money order to our office at the above address.

Thus it is clear from the above the consignment arrival intimation dated 16.9.2014 there is delay in consignment reaching Mumbai. However there is no evidence of Opposite Party as even affidavit evidence of Opposite Parties is not filed.  Hence from the testimony of complainant it is established that there was delay in delivery of the consignment at Mumbai and there by deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence we are point no.  2 answer in the affirmative.

7.  POINTS No. (iii):  As to quantification of compensation complainant admittedly paid Rs.1,380/ as consignment charges to Opposite Party complainant as not substantiated his claim of personally delivering  another set of documents. Hence there is no justification for awarding consignment claim paid to Opposite Party for Rs.1,380/ and towards mental agony awarding sum of Rs.5,000/ another Rs.5,000/ towards cost apart from consignment charge of paid by complainant Rs.1,380/ would meets hence justice.

Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                The complaint is allowed with cost. Opposite parties are directed to pay of Rs. 1,380/ to complainant with interest at 9% from the date of complaint till the date of payment.

2.   Opposite parties shall also pay Rs.5,000/ as compensation.

3.  Opposite parties shall also another Rs.5,000/ cost of the complainant.

4.   Opposite parties granted 30 days time for making payment.

       Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 6 dictated by President to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st May              2017)

             MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

     (LAVANYA M RAI)                    (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum           D.K. District Consumer Forum

             Mangalore                                      Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Richard Monteiro,

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:  24.9.2014: Notice to air India by complainant.

Ex.C2: 31.10.2014: Reply notice by Air India.

Ex.C3: 10.9.2014: Air way bill

Ex.A1: 20.9.2014: Letter issued by Air India.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1: Mr. Nagesh Shetty, Area Manager

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Dated: 31.05.2017                                    PRESIDENT