BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 17^th April 2015        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.:    238/2014

 Complaint No.:    239/2014

Complainant/s:       Pragati Marketing 13 – 14, 98, Anchatageri Street, Hubli – 580 028. R/by its Proprietor – Ravi Baddi.

(By Sri.B.M.Javali, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s: 1.     The Authorised Signatory, Shree Kumar Roadlines, Fleet Owners & Parcel Carriers, Head Office: Honnavar (UK)

                       2.      The Authorised Signatory, Shree Kumar    

Roadlines, Branch: Jolad Oni, Main Road, Hubli – 580 020.  

(By Sri.P.C.Godi, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     Since the complaints are filed by the same complainants against the same respondents and as the reliefs sought are the common, for the convenience  these 2 complaints were clubbed together and disposed in a common judgment. 

2.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to return the consigned items or to refund the value of the consignment articles with interest @18%, to order for payment of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and to order for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.     The case of the complainant is that, complainant is the reputed marketers of various products particularly household appliances & from long back the complainants are used to send the consignment to the customers through the respondents, as the respondents are running parcel carriers. Accordingly the complainant booked consignment with the respondent.2 to deliver the same to the destination customers of the articles under invoice numbers as detailed.

4.     As undertaken by the respondent the articles were not delivered to the consignee. Thereafter the complainant made repeated approaches and enquired with regard to the delivery but the respondent on false assurance drag on and did not gave any receipt for delivery of the consignment to the consignee. Hence, the complainant put to untold hardship and also lost business fame. At last the complainant got issued legal notice on 22.08.2014 calling upon the respondent to return the articles or otherwise to refund the value of the articles and cost incurred by him. For that the respondent did not chosen either to reply or to comply. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

5.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. While the respondent admits the booking of the parcel by the complainant with respondent under relevant consignment receipts & taken contention that same were delivered to the consignee despite of it the complainant with an ulterior motive and to have wrongful gain filed instant false claim by making false allegation in order to affect and to defame the respondents. Also denied the deficiency in service as alleged and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

The complainant admits sworn to evidence affidavit. The respondents except filing written version did not admits sworn to evidence affidavit. The complainant relied on documents, apart from argument complainant also filed notes of argument and relied on citations.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmative 
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

7.     Since the respondent did not chosen to admit sworn to evidence affidavit in support of contentions taken in the written version the contention of the complainant stood unimpeached. In this regard complainant relied on 1994 (1) CPJ (Gujarat State CDRC). However the respondent admits booking of the consignment as pleaded but failed to establish the same were delivered to the consignee and also failed to produce delivery receipt before this Forum. The complainant in support of his contentions and entitle for cost of the value of the consignment and not applicable of terms and conditions of consignment receipts relied on citations 1993 (2) CPJ 656 TN; 1997 (1) CPJ 473 TN; 1994 (1) CPJ 297 TN. As per the gist of the citations the complainant is entitled for the value of the consignment with cost and compensation. Hence, the complainant with appulsive & cogent evidence established his case of deficiency in service against the respondent. Accordingly complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed.

8.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmative & accordingly.

9.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

        Complaints are allowed in part. The respondents.1 and 2 jointly and severally directed to return the articles booked by the complainant along with Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the respondents shall refund the value of the articles as per the invoice along with cost of the consignment charges with  interest @9% P.A. from the date of booking of the consignment till realization.

Original order be kept in CC/238/2014 and its copy in CC/239/2014.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 17^th day of April 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR