By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President,
Facts in brief:-
1. While the complainant was working as a Staff Nurse in King Fahd Hospital, Saudi Arabia, she had entrusted a Cargo assignment with ABC Cargo, Saudi Arabia worth of Rs.50,000/- having the weight of 74kgs on 01-07-2011 to be delivered in her husband's address at Calicut, which includes Toys, food items, Sweets etc., paying 350 Saudi Riyal as fee. But it is not delivered yet. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party appeared and filed version emphatically denying the whole transactions. It was averred that the opposite party is fully unaware of the sending of the consignment by Sea Cargo and opposite party is not a franchisee of the ABC Cargo, Saudi Arabia, who is not impleaded as a party. But subsequently admitted that they are the delivery agents of the ABC Cargo, Saudi Arabia. It is stated that the consignment is in custody of the customs Authorities at Chennai, since it contains some illegal articles and so detained.
3. The main point that arises for our consideration is as follows:-
(i) Whether the opposite party is deficient in service by making a non-delivery of the said articles to the addressee.
(ii) Relief if any.
4. Point No.(i) & (ii):-
The complainant has produced and marked the documents as Ext.A1 and A2 series. Ext.a1 is the cash invoice issued by ABC Cargo Saudi Arabia which clearly pointed out that 74kgs of the Household articles were sent as HWB No.1322 to Calicut by the complainant, as Sea Cargo, paying 350 Saudi Riyal as fee. The Ext.A2 series are the office copy of the Registered lawyer Notice, Receipt and A/D card, for which no reply notice was issued by opposite party who had accepted the notice on 25-09-2012. The complainant and opposite parties witness were examined in the forum and Ext.B1 is marked by opposite party.
5. From the very beginning the opposite party was stressing a particular point that ABC Cargo is a Courier Company at Saudi Arabia, handling the consignment by Sea Cargo and opposite party has nothing to do with the loss of the consignment in transit. So the opposite party has no liability to compensate the loss if any, to the complainant, but in paragraph No.9, reads that “എന്നാല്‍ ഹരജിക്കാര്യത്തില്‍ ഹരജിക്കാരി ഞങ്ങളോട് നേരിട്ട് ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നൂവെങ്കിലും ഞങ്ങളെകൊണ്ട് ചെയ്യാവുന്ന സഹായമെന്ന നിലയില്‍ വിവരങ്ങള്‍ അന്വേഷിച്ച് അവരുടെതെന്ന് പറയപ്പെടുന്ന ഉരുപ്പടികള്‍ കസ്റ്റംസ് പിടിചെടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും, ആയത് തിരിച്ചെടുക്കണമെന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ ചെന്നൈ ആസ്ഥാനമായിട്ടുള്ള കമ്മീഷണര്‍ ഓഫ് കസ്റ്റംസ് ബന്ധപ്പെടുവാനും................... ഞങ്ങള്‍ ഹരജിക്കാരിയോട് ബോധ്യപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്. എന്നിരുന്നാലും ABC കാര്‍ഗോയുടെ കെ.എസ്.എ. ഓഫീസുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടതിന്‍റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തില്‍ ഇവരുടെ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന് പറയുന്ന സാധനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പകരമായി 12-10-2011-ന് എ.ബി.സി. കാര്‍ഗോ സാധനങ്ങളടങ്ങിയ ഒരു ബോക്സ്‌ അയച്ചു തരികയും ആയത് അവരുടെതല്ലെന്നു പറഞ്ഞ് തള്ളിക്കളയുകയുണ്ടായി ”.
6. The paragraph No.2 of the version is also highly contradictory to the stand taken by opposite party in the beginning which states that “എ.ബി.സി. കാര്‍ഗോ എന്ന സ്ഥാപനം മേല്‍ കാണിച്ച വിലാസത്തില്‍ ഇല്ലാത്തതും എന്നാല്‍ പ്രസ്തുത കാര്‍ഗോ കമ്പനി മുഖാന്തിരം വരുന്ന ഉരുപ്പടികള്‍ ഡെലിവറി നടത്തുന്നത് ഞങ്ങളുടെ സ്ഥാപനം മുഖാന്തിരമാണ്”.
7. The Ext.B1 document is produced by opposite party as an attempt to prove that the above said article were detained by the Commissioner of Customs (import) as non-bonafide baggage. But no evidence is available in Ext.B1 to show that, the complainant's articles were also included in the list. The name of the passengers in whose name the consignment were booked are tabulated in the document. But the name of the complainant or the name of the person in whose name it is booked is not seen. In the page No.19, with column No.8, it is stated that the notice was issued to ABC Cargo, Pallavaram, Chennai. It does not substantiate the claim of the opposite party that 74kgs of articles were seized and detained by customs in a suspicious circumstances.
8. The Hon'ble National Commission has held that the duty of a Courier is that of the duty of an insurer who has got every liability to deliver the goods to the addressee safely and promptly. Complainant is a consumer who had paid 350 Saudi Riyal as the fee. An educated, employed lady who spent her two precious year in the desert of Saudi Arabia has sent some Toys, food items, sweets, soaps, etc. the articles were verified individually by the officers of ABC Cargo in Saudi Arabia and it was only on due satisfaction of them the said Cargo and the consignment fees had been received and accepted by opposite party making the complainant to believe that the said Cargo would be delivered to her husband. If the boxes contains any illegal articles, the opposite party should not have accepted it then and there.
9. It is to be noted that after accepting the lawyer Notice opposite party has not even cared to sent a reply disputing and denying the allegations contained therein. Unnecessarily, a lady was dragged to the Court for three years to get a legitimate right of a Citizen, which will amount to cruelty and mental tension to her.
10. On analysing the evidence on records and depositions, this forum came to the conclusion that the opposite party is deficient in service.
11. In the result, we order that the opposite party shall refund value fo the articles lost, Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) for the unbearable mental agony and hardship she has met and Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) as the litigation expenses. The opposite party is further directed to return the consignment fee, 350 Saudi Riyal or the equivalent Indian rupee 5,988.5 to the complainant. This order shall be complied within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dated this 4th day of May, 2015.
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Premalatha.A.P., Complainant.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2
Ext.A1 : Phoo copy of the Cargo Cash Invoice.
Ext.A2(series) : Postal Acknowledgement card, Postal receipt and Registered Lawyer
Notice dated, 24-09-2012 by complainant's counsel to opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1
DW1 : Abdul Rasheed, opposite party.
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1
Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Show Cause Notice issued under
Section 124 of the Custom Act, 1962.
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
